READERS LETTERS
READERS LETTERS
Anything can enter country
The importance of your news report (May 10) that the Treasury is unlikely to be willing to foot the bill for another major disease outbreak and will, therefore, require producers to subscribe to a compulsory levy to provide insurance cover, should be clearly noted.
The background to its stance is that no effort or government money is spent on baggage inspection or controls when people or goods arriving in the UK pass through customs control.
DEFRA, Customs and Environmental Health Officers are nowhere to be seen. Consequently, anything can and does enter the country. In the fullness of time, another disease will come and farmers will be needed to bail out the government.
David Kent
S E Kent & Son, Red Court, Swilland, Ipswich, Suffolk.
F&M cover-up so suspicious
Despite government protestations many think it likely that foot-and-mouth was caused by vaccine trials that either went wrong or "escaped" deliberately. Many facts support that view.
Why were slaughterhouses forewarned? Why was there no vaccination? Why was there such a massive slaughter policy?
Oral vaccines in regular food supplies may suppress immunity to the disease normally protected by vaccine. Transplacental exposure to the edible vaccine may cause the foetus to be tolerant to the virus without showing symptoms. Was that experiment tried on sheep and is that why so many lambs and in lamb ewes were slaughtered?
Is that why Ben Gill went into a meeting with Tony Blair, like a raging bull defending farmers rights and came out like a mouse, in a state of shock, defending government policy?
Is that why buildings were destroyed, floors dug up and intensive disinfection used? Is that why theres the fear of re-infection in grazing stock? Is that why land was not disinfected from the air? Is that why sheep wool was meticulously picked out of hedgerows and fields? Is that the reason for the signing of the Official Secrets Act by many involved? Was that the reason why help from top scientists in the field of F&M was refused?
Was a second virus introduced to cover for the first? Is that why Tony Blair wont hold a public inquiry? His excuse about costs is a poor one.
It would never do to tell the public the truth, especially if GM trials were involved. Far easier to cover up and blame others. In this case, farmers, dealers, Bobby Waugh, Chinese restaurants, illegal meat imports and anyone else we can point the finger at.
P * Burbage,
Calvadnack Farm, Carnmenellis, Redruth, Cornwall.
Wood banned, why not meat?
I feel that DEFRA is to be congratulated on its prompt and efficient measures to set up border controls and ban the importation of trees and wood products from countries where sudden oak death is known to occur. This is an important and logical step to protect Britains precious landscape and countryside from this imported disease.
What a shame that, more than 14 months after the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, no such measures have been put in place to control the importation of meat and meat products, both legal and illegal, from countries where this disease is known to occur, threatening not just our precious landscape, but the livelihood and future of so many people that live and work within it.
Neil Johnson
St Egwins Road, Norton, Evesham, Worcestershire nej21@btinternet.com
Millions in, billions out
I must say that I cannot see any salvation for British agriculture within the framework of the European Union.
Like the common fisheries policy, the CAP does not, despite promised reforms, favour Britains producers. Any so-called co-financing from our own country will not be forthcoming.
We have read of the decision not to apply for agrimoney compensation because of competing demands on the public purse. Although much is made of the £ millions received from the EU, little reference is made about the billions contributed every year by this country, some to be squandered by corrupt officials in Brussels and some allegedly paid out on fraudulent claims made in various member states.
Many of those claimants ignore completely the thousands of European directives which emanate from the EU while our government appears to be more than happy to accept them.
The continued refusal of France to allow imports of British beef, and the more recent demands in respect of the over six-months lambs from Britain, are obvious examples of blatant protectionism. For our government to claim that we have any power in the EU is quite ridiculous.
L M Hosken
22 Alma Terrace, Penzance, Cornwall.
Government is out to destroy
In the three years up to the last general election more than 60,000 jobs in the UKs agriculture and horticulture industry have disappeared, 9000 agricultural workers have been sacked in the 12 months to June 2001 and 3200 farmers left full time farming in the same period.
In 2001, we had a deficit in the balance of food trade, with all countries – that is what we imported over what we exported (meat – £2,197m; dairy – £656m; fish – £272m; cereals – £313m) and these are home produced foods. For vegetables and fruit and figure is £3,728m. For UK trade in food, feed and drink the total figure is a staggering £9,571m. These figures have been increasing annually and are a national disgrace.
Agriculture is an essential core industry to Britain, which this government is hell bent on punishing or destroying to appease those organisations whose interests are directly opposed to its technical and business development to feed the nation.
The general public are confused about the fiction being spread but they should be informed of the facts.
Farmers should put aside their differences and campaign for an agricultural policy for Britain.
The government should be put out to grass, starting with DEFRAsecretary Margaret Beckett, whose knowledge of agriculture appears to have been learned from the door of her caravan.
Giles Wynne
Retired farmer, 12 Dean Street, Stewarton, Ayrshire.
British beef has lost plot
Your criticism (Opinion, May 17) of DEFRA Secretary, Margaret Becketts, unashamed support for the Beefeater chain is justified, in a political sense. But there is more to this question than simply pinning the guilt to Beefeater for its apparently low usage of British meat.
It is just possible that Beefeater customers, who elect to eat in their chains, do so because they seek a consistent taste of beef that can be found only at Beefeater or similar rival outlets. The simple fact is that imported strip loin from Texas or Argentina does taste, as we all well know if we are honest, how a strip loin really should – tender, flavoursome and delicious.
British beef on the other hand, has rather lost the plot. For too long we have paid lip service to the supermarkets, who inform us that most UK consumers prefer the pink, tasteless bulk-meat producing Continental breeds. Supermarkets make big money by fast turn-around. And in order to achieve that, they require large, fatless carcasses to be killed, quickly packaged, priced and sold without a hanging period. The result can be seen on any supermarket cold shelf. Pink, tough, flavourless and over-priced meat.
It is my view that we should go all out to achieve three things. First, we need to pay more careful attention to how we produce our beef through the way we feed them. Second, we need to return to breeds that will produce the flavours in meat that is so lacking in the Continentals. And third, organisations such as the Meat and Livestock Commission on behalf of British Agriculture, should retake the lead by educating the buying public how to enjoy good beef as in years gone by.
The key now is promotion and hard sell. But more than that we need to press the big five supermarket chains on all fronts, to explain how we want our British beef presented to the consumer for the most delicious eating. When all that happens British beef will once again become the envy of the world.
I dont even produce beef, but I adore it, so I buy from a proper butcher who sells it hung for a month with lovely juicy, crispy fat and veins. And it melts in the mouth just like lovely English butter. Yum yum. Roll on Sunday.
Charles Dingwall
Lyford Grange, Lyford, Wantage, Oxfordshire.
Support by any other name
Your correspondent Sean Rickard (Letters, May 3) challenges me to reflect on his point of view, "Production support is a waste of money". It is difficult to fault his logic, if universally applied.
But in practice, most countries support production either overtly, through import duties or area, tonnage or headage payments, or covertly, through exchange rate weakness (as in Australia and New Zealand) or tax or debt breaks. Thus the prospect of universally agreed changes seems remote.
Meanwhile, Mr Rickards continuing campaign makes UK farmers more and more unpopular with the public and him with me.
Bob Mawle
Wood Home Farm, South Tawton, Devon.
Get letters to daily papers
There are always some excellent letters in farmers weekly, read obviously by rural readers. Would readers please send copies to daily papers when dealing with appropriate subjects such as meat and milk imports, footpaths and protecting wildlife etc? That would help to reach the urban population. It might help to ensure that letter writers were not just preaching to the converted.
Liz Coldicott
Clopton Orchard Farm, Upper Quinton, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire.
Royal in error over camelids
I write further to the article about the banning of sheep, goats and alpacas from the Royal Show this year (News, May 10).
The RASE is apparently unaware that DEFRA now classifies camelids separately from sheep and goats. A significant recognition that camelids have a different epidemiology for foot-and-mouth, are very resistant to the disease and, therefore, should present a different risk assessment to sheep and goats when present at live shows.
Although the Royal Show suggests it considers the risks too great, it is interesting to note that other important shows have conducted risk assessments and felt able to undertake camelid classes and be able to meet DEFRAs stringent biosecurity required of such events.
The British Llama and Alpaca Association regrets the decision of the RASE and feels that an important opportunity has been missed to bring normality back to livestock showing.
Nick Weber
Co-Chair BLAA, Nick@westways-alpacas.co.uk
Show rules are far too fussy
There seems to be much unnecessary fuss being made about DEFRAs Draconian proposals for biosecurity at agricultural shows and livestock markets.
Surely, it is up to DEFRA to put its own house in order first by demonstrating that it has taken adequate measures at all our ports of entry. Then, it should be a matter for local DEFRA officials and show organisers to work out reasonable and effective compromises in each individual case.
In other words, a veterinary risk assessment should be conducted.
Norman W Leslie
55 Cambridge Avenue, Marton-in-Cleveland, Middlesbrough.
Act to protect the 28-day rule
Many farmers will have heard of the latest attempt to trick farmers into the removal of their 28-day privileges to use their land without planning permission for hobbies and events.
It must be stopped before it gets off the ground. All farmers should respond, you never know when you might want to use your land for something and your local authority could prevent that if this consultation document is not challenged by as many farmers as possible.
Perhaps the 28-day rule should be extended to 180 days to grant landowners the freedom they deserve. Or should we contest this proposition under the Court of Human Rights Act 1998? On the one hand, the government says diversify but on the other it promotes more regulation and stops everything.
For those with access to the internet, the offending section is: http://www.planning.dtlr.gov.uk/consult/ucotup/index.htmSection 8. A ferocious response is necessary to protect farmers interests. Please act. There is no point complaining after the decision has been taken.
David Proudfoot
david.proudfoot@btinternet.com
Vested interest in CJD cause
Brenda Sutcliffe (Letters, May 3) drew attention to the fact that organophosphorous (Dichlorfos) is now banned as an insecticide in the home, but organophosphorous insecticides are nevertheless still used on childrens heads.
Some people (like me) think this could possibly account for the youngsters killed by CJD. The infective feed theory, with the misformed prions resulting from the disorder being treated as the vectors, was given credence in the media in 1996 by the President of the Royal Society at that time, neurobiologist Sir Aaron Klug , who underwrote restrictions on feed and beef – but solely "on the precautionary principle".
The only evidence he had to go on was a half dozen trials of inter-species transmissibility, to which research had been diverted, of which he was good enough to send me the transcripts. They were all inconclusive so far as identifying the vector for the disorder was concerned since they all used raw whole brain homogenate from cows with BSE, so they all contained all possible vectors (whatever caused BSE) as well as the misformed prions caused by the disorder; no tests were done for anything other than the prions as evidence of BSE. No proper official trials had been carried out into OP as vectors then, so the PRS had nothing else to go on, and none have been to date, seven years later!
Given the negligent handling of the BSE outbreak by MAFF we would all have CJD by now if it were a simple infection rather than a genetic disorder due to manganese taking the place of copper in the formation of routine replacement prions in the brain cells of the few who, by bad luck, are genetically vulnerable to this malformation. The rest of us will not get the disorder, unless flooded with manganese from industrial pollution like a population in Slovakia downwind of an Eastern Bloc chrome steel works, with more CJD in five miles than in the whole of the UK. OP captures all the copper atoms allowing manganese to take its place.
Mark Purdey has demonstrated scientifically the role of OP in triggering the BSE epidemic, but the establishment maintains its pretences to save itself embarrassment, as well as liability for damages. The biological establishment is in the pay of the giant pharmaceutical companies who carry out most of the research.
Scientific establishments are wooden ships, once in full sail before the prevailing wind there is no stopping them without shooting them out of the water.
Lord Walsingham
The Hassocks, Merton, Thetford, Norfolk.
Info wanted on draft oxen
Do any readers have any information on working/draft oxen in the UK? When and where were oxen last commercially used in the UK? How long a working life did they expect from oxen?
What type of wood was used for the yokes, did regions have different shape/sized yokes? Since selling our dairy, I am doing this research with Brymore School in Somerset.
Wendy Welland
Faircott Farm, Brent Road, Berrow, Burnham-on-Sea, Essex.