READERS LETTERS
5 April 2002
READERS LETTERS
Brits just couldnt be bothered
After our visit to the Paris Agricultural Show on Mar 1 and 2 we are writing to say how wonderful the event was and how much the French appreciate their farmers.
We also want to say how horrified we were at the MLC/Welsh Lamb/Scottish Beef/DEFRA stand.
At 8pm on the Friday evening, the stand was empty and apparently closed. But the show did not finish until 10pm and all the other stands were busy entertaining visitors with demonstrations. How can this help British farming if no one could be bothered to attend?
The British stand was close to a similar French stand which had the most beautiful displays of meat cuts and joints. Our stand showed just a few slabs of vacuum packed meat. If we are going to show the lovely produce of British farmers, let us remember the presentation.
Friday evening may have lost that all-important contact to put British produce back on the European map.
Norman and Emma Wyatt
Partridge Cottage, Henley Road, Hampton on the Hill, Warwick.
Ban hunting, ban football?
Amid the current smokescreen of the government contemplating using the Parliamentary Act to push through a ban on hunting and the urban mob legislating the minority in the countryside out of a livelihood, let us consider the effect of a ban on soccer.
It has become a violent sport which has always had a hooligan following. Such hooliganism has recently become more pronounced. I am sure smaller football clubs are innocent of any dirty deeds but that is the problem with a blanket ban. It is a blunt weapon and, of course, they will have to be banned along with everyone else.
Some thought will need to be given to what must be done to stop little boys kicking a ball about. Perhaps they will be persuaded to play the more peaceful pastimes of hockey and rugby football which will not be banned. Every policeman must know the difference between these sports and soccer. It is unfortunate that the players must be banned largely for the activities of their supporters but law is law and everyone must be dealt with firmly. Often the players are violent.
It is not anything to do with class distinction and one section of society voting for legislation against another. It is an outcry against violence and cruelty by those of us who never go to a football game and are not able to appreciate its appeal.
We can make an economic case from the savings in police time but, as with hunting, economics are not featured in the desire for a ban and we are not concerned with job losses.
In the end there will be so many laws affecting the way we live that it will be almost impossible to get through a day without breaking one. But what has common sense to do with this emotive issue?
David Price
Hilltop, Upton Bishop, Ross on Wye.
A window of opportunity
Your editorial (Opinion, Mar 15) mentioned that farmers thinking of converting their acres to organic status might "tread warily" in case there is no premium after they have converted. That illustrates an unfortunate mentality problem.
On the basis that any new enterprise is trying to fill a market void or demand is taking a chance on potential success, why not attempt to fill the hopelessly under-supplied organic grain option? You have reported and promoted the many other options for farmers to diversify, and not often warned of creating a surplus, or of possible declining prices. That includes holiday accommodation, different breeds of stock, new crop lines and crops for fuel production.
Meanwhile, the conventional arable farmer will have the freedom of continuing to produce and sell at paltry prices, probably turning in a loss, and can look forward to being saved only by support payments. It is a tumultuous agriculture that farmers are trying to eke a living from. They are only trying to respond to some vague and weak market signals, with no assurance that any are successful.
Hopefully, there are some innovative farmers who will appreciate this potential opportunity. The NFU Organic Committee will be endeavouring to provide them with the chance to see at first hand how established organic cereals growers, like myself, grow crops that are pleasant to look at and to combine.
Oliver Dowding
Chairman, NFU Organic Committee, Hill Farmhouse, Shepton Montague, Wincanton, Somerset.
Organics model for change
Martin Corley says the Soil Association spends its time criticising non-organic farmers (Letters, Feb 15). He also suggests we are out of touch by calling for an action plan and targets for the development of organic farming in the UK. George Bentley (Letters, Mar 1) made similar claims.
Much of our correspondence with FW deals with misguided criticism of our work, rather than pushing "extreme" views or attacking non-organic farmers.
Farming is in a mess. Recently a consensus has emerged that solutions to the problems we face will have to be radical if agriculture is to thrive in the longer term. CAP is long overdue for reform. The Curry Commission has recognised that reform is needed and pointed the way forward. Action has to be taken to win back the trust of the public, rebuild our markets and warrant the support we need from government.
Organic farming is a model for such change, but if it is to continue to develop, its expansion needs to be planned strategically. That is why we need an organic action plan with targets for its implementation. The difficulties experienced in some areas of organic production result from the lack of a strategic approach.
The Soil Association is a farmer organisation, but we also work with consumers, processors and retailers. Joining the links in the food chain is vital to our work and essential for British farmings success.
We need these links to be made and strengthened as the only way to ensure that information is shared, markets are developed and that prices to farmers reflect the cost of production.
That is the core task of the Soil Association. Why would we want to attack farmers who look to organic farming as the way forward?
Phil Stocker
Head of agriculture, Soil Association, Bristol House, Victoria St, Bristol.
Arable already on the rocks
I was most bemused to see myself described as a "siren voice" (Letters, Mar 8) merely because I have proposed the formation of an arable farmers group. The Sirens were a group of desirable women with enchanting songs who enticed ancient Greek sailors to their doom by luring them to sail onto rocks.
I am more than happy to be compared to people who proved overwhelmingly attractive to members of the opposite sex (although I would add Greek sailors are not really my type). What I do object to is the suggestion that I proposed to ruin arable farmers.
Across British agriculture there are groups representing individual sectors such as pigs, sheep, cattle, and poultry. The glaring exception here is the arable sector. I find it very odd that even to suggest that such a group could be formed is treated as some sort of dangerous treason. Those who dismiss me as a "siren voice" may have failed to notice British arable farming is already on the rocks. They may also care to remember that despite suffering currency strength and low commodity prices, the US arable sector has maintained its incomes over the past five years by convincing the US government that its situation deserves government attention. This is something British arable farmers have manifestly failed to do.
The complacent attitude that existing groups already do everything conceivable to help the arable sector is part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Guy Smith
Wigboro Wick, St Osyth, Essex.
No incentive to buy British
I write regarding Mrs J Bacons letter (Mar 15) on "so-called" public footpaths. I often hear the statement from rural dwellers that us townies are ignorant of countryside matters. Im tired of hearing this stereotype but getting out and about into the countryside would seem to be a good way for urbanites to see the guardians of the countryside in action. But Mrs Bacon doesnt seem to want us to get out of our cars, lest we "stamp and shout, like badly behaved children".
I go out of my way to buy British, shop locally and support our farming industry. But attitudes like this make me want to forget it all and fill my shopping basket with New Zealand lamb and Danish bacon. My loyalty is starting to wane.
Mrs A Bannon
Eastbourne, Sussex.
Is this scheme a serious one?
I write about your article Assurance credibility at risk (News, Mar 15). I wish people would stop calling ACCS a quality assurance scheme. Any grain, however diseased, whatever its specific weight or protein level qualifies if the paperwork is right. Since the scheme avoids any claims to intrinsic quality should it be called more accurately a non-quality assurance scheme?
As for credibility of these schemes, what about the recent case of Tescos Freedom Foods Irish chicken where thousands were sold, over a long period, due to a "communication slip up."
If non-assured produce can be passed off as assured with no intent, what could be achieved with a bit of ingenuity? Since end users of assured grain need only to know the port of origin of their imports for it to be assured, why does anybody take the scheme seriously?
Frank * Henderson
frank@oathillfarm.fsnet.co.uk
HGCA – we are here to help
Id like to thank Mr Thorogood (Letters, Mar 22) for reminding your readers of HGCAs role in supporting the cereals industry.
Extensive consultations with the industry have highlighted the importance attached to the independent information we provide. But, under the Cereals Marketing Act, which brought us into being, we cannot lobby on behalf of the industry for better business conditions.
Our support, therefore, is targeted at providing the industry with the tools needed to reduce costs and improve marketing. An example has been our success in bringing UK producers and exporters together with foreign buyers. Sellers learn about the buyers needs and the buyers learn about the quality and suitability of UK grain. For work in this area we won the DTI sponsored "Exporter of the Year" award last December.
We also sponsor and manage a R&D programme where for every £1 of levy funding we secure 75p from other sources. This delivers a programme with benefits that far outweigh the costs and includes the provision of the Recommended Lists, vital for cereal and oilseed growers. The results of the work are made freely available to the industry through a range of publications that are much in demand. For example, we are receiving 300 requests a month for the Grain Storage Guide.
The HGCA Enterprise Awards support small businesses in the rural economy to bring forward innovative ideas for using UK grain, and to date have generated new markets for 300,000t of grain.
We may not be in a position to bang the drum for the industry in the way some people might like, but we are championing its cause in what we think is the most important way. That is, by attacking costs, improving marketing and understanding markets. I believe its the best approach to ensure the UK cereals sector survives in an increasingly competitive world.
Paul Biscoe
Chief executive HGCA, Caledonia House, 223 Pentonville Rd, London.
Tired of being dumped on
How should British farmers stop the imposition of nitrate vulnerable zones? Militancy? No, because it can never be sustained. Democracy? No, because it no longer exists in this country.
Its time to do what we British are best at: Apathy – doing nothing. By that, I mean refuse to accept waste disposal of any sewage sludge on your land. The government refuses to listen to the NFU arguments. I believe they will have to listen to the water companies when they have nowhere to dispose of their human slurry. Incineration is costly and land fill and dumping at sea is no longer environmentally acceptable.
To make this work we need united apathy. If any arable farmers feel the regulations are not that onerous and it is more of a livestock sector issue, remember that regulations only ever increase. If you think the forward price for the next harvest is poor, consider how bad it could be with fewer livestock to use your produce and an even higher proportion having to be exported.
So come on everybody. Join me in apathy and repeat the words: Im tired of being dumped on.
J * Smith
Inmarsh Farm, Seend, Melksham, Wilts.
Government knew all along
While you may be disappointed by the decision of Lord Justice Simon Brown to reject the legal bid to force the government to hold a full public inquiry into foot-and-mouth (Opinion and News, Mar 22), it does mean there is no legal obstacle to revealing the true story about this disaster.
No evidence has been presented to support the theory that this virus was imported. The source was almost certainly part of the virus stocks removed from Porton Down during the summer of 2000. Botulism and anthrax were taken at the same time.
The former seems to have turned up in Northern Ireland and there must be a strong possibility that the anthrax virus was transferred to the US because it was the same strain of the anthrax used in the terrorist attacks.
The decision to take the viruses from Porton Down can only have been authorised at the highest political level, probably at Cabinet level.
The F&M was issued to MAFF which probably instructed ADAS to carry out vaccination trials in cattle near Newcastle. When the trial was completed these cattle were transferred to a farm near Heddon-on-the-Wall. The problem arose because the cattle had been treated with attenuated virus which would protect those cattle but would not prevent them secreting live virus. Passage of this live virus through the water supply took the virus to Burncastle Farm and hence the outbreak.
MAFF was almost certainly aware of the problem in late 2000 and warned foreign governments accordingly. To claim that movements should have stopped immediately is nonsense because MAFF had known about the problem for probably at least two months.
Having refused the opportunity for a public inquiry, the government and its minions should not object to a truthful statement about what is by far the most likely source of F&M.
Arnold Pennant
Nant Gwilym, Tremeirchion, St Asaph, Denbighshire.
Help light up the nation
Through your Letters Section I would like to appeal to farmers who want to play a part in the jubilee celebrations to consider joining the national beacon chain on Mon, June 3. Our industrys role in this is being led by the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution.
The aim is for farming to make a notable contribution to the national effort by providing a significant share of the total number of beacons that are lit on this historic day.
To qualify, beacons do not necessarily have to be complex, open to the public or used for fund raising. They can be as low key as a family barbecue.
But to qualify as part of the beacon chain and count towards farmings contribution, they do need to be logged with RABI before the end of April. Call the organisation on 01865-724931 for a simple registration form.
By doing this, each farming beacon will be recorded for posterity in an attachment to the official Golden Jubilee Summer Party souvenir magazine.
RABI is also seeking a commercial sponsor to help cover the costs of producing its own commemorative map on which every registered beacon will be marked. A limited edition print of the map will be sent to every farming beacon organiser.
My hope is that a good response from farmers to this historic national initiative will create a positive impression of our industry with the British public.
Lord Plumb of Coleshill
President of RABI, House of Lords, Westminster, London.