October 2009 Archives

It's been a worrying time for the show industry with the news that one county agricultural society has 'put itself into mothballs' and is unlikely to ever stage a major show again, while another has announced job cuts due a potential deficit next year.

Add to this rumours that the Royal Agricultural Society of England is in financial trouble and has only just confirmed Royal Show winners will finally receive their prize money - three months after the event - and you can see there is cause for concern.

The RASE has refuted the rumours of financial plight, while admitting a 'short-term cash-flow problem' but, with the demise of the Royal Show, supposedly the flagship of British agriculture, there are obviously challenging times ahead.

The Royal Bath and West Society has cut six jobs after being left with a potential budget deficit, caused by the fact there will be no extra show staged in 2010. It held two Dairy Shows in 2008, following the cancelled show in 2007, and this year held Grassland, a dairy show and its summer show.

Two cancelled shows in succession cost the Royal Lancashire Agricultural Society more than £550,000, but its problems went much deeper than that.

In March the society cancelled the 2009 show due to problems over the showground and money, having had rows with the Duchy of Lancaster, the site's owners, with claims and counter-claims flying back and forth.

Talks about moving to the Blackpool area broke down and a suggested return to a site at Ribchester did not come to fruition. This week the society reluctantly admitted the show had 'reached the end of the road' and the society was being 'mothballed for an indefinite period'.

Society company secretary David Marriott described it as a 'sad indictment', but this comment could also be used for numerous shows up and down the country as they battle against crippling cash problems, increased bureacracy, and, of course, the vagaries of the weather.

As has been said many times agricultural shows, whether major county events, or the smallest local show, are the industry's shop window, but for how long?

Farmers Guardian staff attended more than 50 shows this year and we carried reports from 204 county and local shows, and one thing that came across was the enthusiasm, not just from the competitors, but also the organisers and officials, many of whom are volunteers.

But they are being hit by differing levels of bureaucracy up and down the country which is hampering their efforts, not to mention the anguish and frustration as shows have been cancelled, sometimes at the last minute, due to weather or disease problems. They deserve better, so let's hope things show an improvement next year.

THE last time Lord Stern of Brentford produced a report on climate change the whole world listened.  

The Stern Review, published three years ago, became the definitive guide on the economic impacts of climate change for Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and political leaders all over the globe.

So Lord Stern's comments this week that meat eating could soon become as taboo as drink-driving should not be dismissed as those of another crackpot.

The livestock industry needs to listen to him, take him seriously and respond coolly and collectively.

After all, much of what Lord Stern says is true.

Agriculture does contribute 7 per cent of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions and it does generate around 38 per cent of the country's methane emissions.

Meat production clearly does have a carbon footprint and the meat supply chain clearly must find ways of reducing its impact.

But Lord Stern - who was joined by Friends of the Earth, Compassion in World Farming, Sustain, Viva in his criticism - was wrong to victimise British livestock farmers and wrong to encourage consumers to boycott their meat and dairy products.

Lord Stern failed to recognise that Britain's 80,000 livestock farmers have a fantastic track record of tackling green house gas emissions that have fallen by 17 per cent since 1990.

Defra recently set a target to reduce emissions by a further 11 per cent by 2020 and livestock farmers are well on their way to achieving this too, through better breeding, improved diets and new technology such as anaerobic digestion.

Farmers are doing their bit. But is everybody else? No.

Consumers still waste 40 per cent of all the food they buy.

The European Union still allows the importation of meat produced through the destruction of the rainforest.

The UK still flies in more than 50 per cent of its fruit and vegetables from around the world. 

I could go on.

Agriculture has taken some deserved flack in its time but it should not be pilloried on this one - farmers are part of the solution to producing sustainable food and tackling climate change, not part of the problem, and they should be treated as such. 

One other thing.

With all this talk about meat eating it struck me this week that agriculture's top two politicos are herbivores.

It was no real surprise, then, that neither Hilary 'veggie' Benn, environment secretary, nor Jim 'fruity' Fitzpatrick, food and farming minister, were wheeled out to take part in the great meat debate.

Thankfully Defra did manage to find one bona fide carnivore in its corridors of power.

It was heartening to listen to Professor Bob Watson, Defra's chief scientific advisor, talk passionately about his diet of meat 'two or three times a week', fish 'every now and then' and 'more and more' vegetables.

One look into Prof Watson's hungry eyes convinced me that meat eating will not be rationed under his watch.

This morning I was treated to a breakfast fit for a king or, to be more precise, a lord.

It was the David Black Awards at the House of Lords, where the great and the good from the British pig industry get together to celebrate one person's outstanding achievements.

And this year's winner is a rare breed.

Step forward Professor Sandra Edwards, chair of agriculture at Newcastle University.

A worthy winner indeed, having dedicated some 30 years to applied research in agriculture.

She is also a rare breed in being an applied research scientist.

In fact, nobody from a science background has won the award for almost a decade now.

Applied science in agriculture is on its knees. And this, at a time when the UK should be leading the world on issues such as food production and animal welfare.

In her acceptance speech she called on farming Minister Jim Fitzpatrick, to push for greater Government investment in applied agricultural science.

Noticeably however, Mr Fitzpatrick failed to respond to that call when he stepped up to the platform to congratulate Prof Edwards.

Also in the audience was Mr Fitzpatrick's predecessor at Defra, Jane Kennedy who last week took up the post as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science in Technology in Agriculture.

Described by many as a 'friend to the industry' when she was at Defra, one can only hope in her new role she can push Government to sit up and take notice.

Prof Edwards warned without more investment and without a solid platform on which to build a successful career in science, many graduates today will seek employment elsewhere.

And that trend is already happening.

I studied under Prof Edwards at Newcastle, and only one of my classmates from those days is now employed in research science.

Telesales reps - yes that person phoning with a great insurance offer on a Sunday morning went through 4 years of university to get there - personal trainers, accountants, teachers and journalists - but just one who continued on to do research.

It's a sad state of affairs.

Britain is at risk of becoming a knowledge vacuum, a place where science is all but forgotten in a bid to cut costs or plough money into other perhaps more 'sexy' projects.

But it is a dangerous path to go down and in the long run would leave us less competitive than our colleagues around the world.

We will be forced to import knowledge and technology at great expense while at the same time losing our status as one of the world's leading science bases.

The Royal Society, home to some of the country's leading scientists, said this week that UK farmers would need to grow genetically modified crops to meet future food demand while impacting less on the environment.

My mind is yet to be made up, but Professor Sir David Baulcombe, botany expert from Cambridge University and chairman of the study, made a compelling argument.

He said farmers could only feed a world population set to hit 9 billion by 2050 with a modern day Green Revolution - and he said GM crops that delivered sustainable food to our doorsteps should be at the forefront of that revolution.

Blight resistant potatoes, drought resistant wheat varieties, nitrogen fixing cereals and oilseed rape rich in Omega 3 are not just pipe dreams, they are serious solutions to a serious problem and could be grown by British farmers, he argued.

The response was predictable in the UK - anti-GM campaigners condemned the Society for 'banging the drum for a failing technology' that has never lived up to its superstar billing and industry leaders - including the NFU, Country Land and Business Association and Royal Agricultural Society of England - rushed to back the report.

Outside of the UK's agriculture bubble, though, there was mild amusement.

The Society's call for a £2 billion war chest to help Britain regain the scientific initiative will have raised a snigger from millions of farmers in Brazil, Argentina, China, India and North America who already grow more than 100 million hectares of GM crops and are already leading the science.

A chuckle will also have been heard coming from the Treasury where the chances of Ministers loosening their grip on £2 billion to pursue a controversial technology during an economic meltdown would seem unlikely.

But Britain's European partners, who have steadfastly blocked GM technology for more than a decade, will laughed the loudest.

It doesn't matter that Prof Baulcombe seems to be (rightly or wrongly) winning the GM argument in the UK, or that Hilary Benn, environment secretary, supports the technology.

GM will not move forward until the UK wins the argument in Europe.

Prof Balucombe said 'we need to act now to stave off food shortages. It we wait five to ten years, it may be too late'.

But will Europe listen?

There's been a lot of noise about the supermarket ombudsman in recent weeks, with the subject hitting the headlines at all three party conferences and at the IGD conference in London last week.

But going over the recent coverage and looking at what Ministers are saying, I am starting to feel a little less optimistic that we might soon see an independent watchdog taking on the might of UK reailers.

The matter now rests with consumer affairs Minister Kevin Brennan, who took part in a Q&A with readers of The Sun last month where he failed to acknowledge the potential for an ombudsman.

Asked about the ever increasing discrepancy between farm gate and retail prices, Mr Brennan failed to give an answer which would convince us of his appetite to take on the big retailer.

Following a spiel about how the Government can't set prices (10/10 for stating the obvious!) he said 'The supermarket industry has been investigated several times recently, and has been found to be competitive'.

Perhaps he forgot the piece of paper on his desk from the Competition Commission (CC) recommending Ministers set up an ombudsman?

The very fact an independent competition authority has made the recommendation would suggest, contrary to his answer, that more does need to be done to regulate retailers.

Add to that the response I got from the press office at DBIS last week where they were only willing to give the same bland statement they did when the recommendation was first put before Ministers, and I get the sinking feeling the Government is looking for a way to wriggle out of this one.

Hopes were raised very briefly last week when international development Minister Michael Foster rejected the supermarkets' argument the ombudsman would lead to higher food prices.

But in the same sentence he said he didn't feel there was sufficient evidence to back up some of the CC's claims.

Early November is the deadline for the Government to respond to the recommendation, and all the signs point to a dodging of the bullet.

That in itself must raise some serious questions about how a Government could overrule an authority - funded no less through taxpayers money - which exists solely to make independent judgments and recommendations to Ministers.

But for all that, the decision has not yet been made and it is up to the industry and other players within the supply chain to make as much noise as possible in the coming weeks and really put pressure on Ministers to bite the bullet.

If they don't it will be held up as another example of a Government unwilling to take on the might of retail power and support farmers, suppliers and perhaps most importantly, consumers.

It was fascinating session of NFU council on Tuesday.

To his great credit Rural Payments Agency boss Tony Cooper appeared for the second time in four months to face the music over the agency's latest administrative embarrassment - the painfully slow re-mapping process.

He is having a tough week but he put a brave face on a problem that, for many in the  Warwickshire conference centre, has the air of history repeating himself.

The main point he sought to get across was that despite the process taking longer than expected, the mapping problems WILL NOT affect 2010 SPS and agri-environment payments. Things are about to speed up and the deadlines will be met.

But then the time came for farmers to start asking questions. Many who had sat through his predecessor Johnston McNeill's flustered appearances in front of council in 2005 and felt they heard echoes of his hopelessly optimistic reassurances that the Single Payment Scheme was on track.

The first speaker told Mr Cooper he simply did not believe that the SPS would not be affected, given the scale of the mapping problem. Later a how of hands revealed half of council members had not yet received their firs maps despite RPA figures showing 80 per cent had now gone out.

"When do we start to panic?" one farmer asked pointedly.

Mr Cooper, unlike his predecessor, stayed calm, answered every question as full as he could and even offered a fulsome apology at one point. However, his assurances that everything would be fine became increasingly qualified as the session progressed.

He received a deserved round of applause for his openness when his time was up.

Mapping was not the only thing on council's mind. Election fever was in evidence -and it had nothing to do with Gordon Brown or David Cameron.

The word is that up a dozen members of the NFU's ruling body are considering putting their names forward for the vice president post vacated by Paul Temple earlier this year.

They were all there on Tuesday.

It was barely referred to openly, but judging by the number of carefully crafted, eye-catching speeches from the floor and unusually tense exchanges, electioneering has begun already - even the vote is another four months away.

One person did break the façade of silence. Sussex representative Roger Foxwell added a new twist to the question he asks at every single council meeting to dairy chairman Gwyn Jones about the NFU's efforts to promote milk in schools. "If you want my vote, Gwyn, we better get some action!" he said.

Another leading contender, Alistair Mackintosh, was undone by an unexpected source.

Council could not contain its glee when a rhythmic throbbing emerged from the sound system during his address on the state of the livestock sector.

"Turn your pacemaker off", "it's coming from your pocket" and "at least it shows he's still alive," were some of the less helpful comments as Mr Mackintosh struggled to identify the problem.

His one word response when the culprit was finally discovered - NFU president Peter Kendall's bleeper - was passionately delivered. And unprintable.

John Charles-Jones' stint on the plinth this morning was one of the more subdued I have seen since it began in July.

There have been the weird, the wonderful and the downright outrageous on the plinth.

Some have even used it in an attempt to find answers to some of the big questions facing humanity today.

And to think they had suggested putting a statue of Nelson Mandela up there!

The participants don't always have a message but when they do, its not always easy to work out what it is.

But for John, with a banner saying 'Farming Matters', a giant wellie and a few Massey Ferguson toy tractors it was very clear.

But getting that across to London's commuters is a tough ask.

His wife Cathy was there, attempting to engage passers by on their way to work and talking to them about food and farming.

How refreshing to see a farmer actively engaging the public like that!

And what a hard public to engage.

The capital's commuters are not renowned for their willingness to talk to strangers let alone listen to their message.

(I attempted to start a conversation on the tube last night and the person I was talking to wasn't sure if I was trying to mug them or chat them up - she backed away slowly, with a nervous simle and a look that simply said 'crrrrrazeeeeeee'.) 

And some of those walking through Trafalgar Square were less than polite, pushing through and continuing their journey without even a hint of interest.

But Cathy and the NFU staff there persevered, striking up conversations with passers by about British farming.

Some even stopped by to say hello to John having heard him on the radio this morning.

It's great to see such a public display of support for the industry from John and Cathy - after all very few will ever have the opportunity to stand up on the plinth, so to dedicate that hour to farming shows a real commitment to the cause.

This was a million mile away from the protests we have seen in recent weeks in Europe and in Ireland yesterday.

This was an event staged to engage with the public and bring attention to farmers.

And what better way to do it than standing in the middle of one of London's most famous landmarks armed with a wellie and a couple of toy tractors!

Imagine my surprise when, on arrival at a hotel in Horsens, Denmark, I found posters of Jamie Oliver everywhere.

And I mean EVERYWHERE!

Hotel reception, the rooms, the bar and even in the hotel shop where an entire bookcase was given over to his cookery books.

I'm a big fan of Jamie, and anyone watching his latest travels around America can't help but marvel at the way he has turned himself into a global superstar.

But what I found slightly ironic was that just weeks after his show Jamie Saves Our Bacon earlier this year - where he heavily criticised the Danish pig industry - he signed a deal with a chain of 150 Scandinavian Hotels.

Front man for Scandic Hotels food, he is a real selling point for them and they are proud of the association, advertising it at every possible stage.

And chatting to Danish farmers and industry representatives it is clear that Danes really didn't feel the effect of Jamie's war on foreign imports.

He criticised Danish welfare and he urged people to buy British. But as far as sales of Danish bacon and pork went, there was very little change.

And no hard feelings too, as a lucrative deal with a poular chain of hotels demonstrates.

He may have knocked their industry but it is very clear the Danes still well and truly love Jamie Oliver.

As my plane touched down in Copenhagen airport last week the excitement from the Danish press and public was palpable.

Camped out in the airport waiting to get a glimpse as the plane touched down, this was one of the most highly anticipated foreign dignitaries to arrive in the country for some time.

Unfortunately I never caught a glimpse of Barrack Obama as he flew in to (unsuccessfully as it turns out) back Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics.

I was of course there on far more important business - to see first hand how the world-famous Danish pig industry is getting along.

And I must say, I was impressed.

A visit to Danish Crown's ultra-modern processing plant in Horsens demonstrated just how far advanced the industry can be.

A huge facility, spanning 82,000 square metres and putting through some 93,000 pigs a week the place looks more like teletubbyland than a processing plant.

Almost everything is automised, from sanitation to cutting, weighing and sorting the carcasses. It is quite an achievement, and one that cost the firm €305m to build.

It even has a visitor's gallery.

There's no wandering around the killing floor, but instead you get a feel for the plant through a series of Perspex windows which look out onto the plant at almost every point in the production process.

Groups of schoolchildren visit the plant along with thousands of visitors from across the world every year. That alone is quite amazing - imagine the uproar in the UK if children were taken to an abattoir on a field trip!

And while it's refreshing to see that connection with the public it is also quite disconcerting.

The very fact that it has a visitor's gallery unnerved me.

It ensures you only see what they want you to see and there's always someone on hand to answer the hard questions.

I have no doubt that the plant is the most advanced in the world and its work to cut its carbon footprint is worthy of great praise.

But it didn't seem real somehow, more like a working museum than anything else.

And farming in Denmark is very much the same wherever you go.

To an English visitor, this is not a vision of the traditional countryside but more a series of warehouses - clean, immaculate offerings which on the surface bear no resemblance to the farms we see here.

We visited two pig farmers - Ole Haahr and Søren Søndergaard and both units were again the ultra-modern facilities which are so rare in the UK.

That's not to say they are better, in fact they do the same job as many of the larger units here and both men admit that like their colleagues the UK, farmers are still struggling to make ends meet regardless of their outward appearance.

But it's a very different kind of farming.

The focus was very much on the business and finance side of things as much as it was on practical farming and as I returned home, still no glimpse of Mr Obama by the way, I couldn't help thinking that no matter how different the system is farmers everywhere are still struggling with the same perennial problems - poor prices, lack of support from retailers and government and an ever-growing list of rules and regulations by which to adhere.