Sheep farming after Foot and Mouth: challenge and change
Jill
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/fmd/farmers/recovery/sheep_farming.
asp
DEFRA news release (2 August 2001) [my comments in[]]
The sheep industry will need to change in the aftermath of Foot and Mouth if
it is to have a sustainable, environmentally-sound and prosperous future,
Lord Whitty, DEFRA Food and Farming Minister said today.
[how much more environmentally sound can the highland sheep industry be -
devon;wales; dales; cumbria and scotlands?]
He said that the industry would need to adapt to a future where there will
be more emphasis on quality rather than quantity
[could someone enlighten me on how this is achieved - ie what does he mean?]
and a system of subsidies which encourages enhancement.
[what does he mean]
Both the industry and Government needed to ensure that farming responded to
market demands
[the european market demanded light hill lambs - and lots of them]
and delivered the kind of landscape and wildlife habitats the public wanted.
[grazing by sheep creates the wild highlands tourists love so well - no
sheep = 10 ft bracken; rhodies; gorse; rushes in a matter of a year or two -
sorry Caledonian Pine forests will take alot of time and lots of money]
Speaking at the NFU Sheep Conference at Warwick today, Lord Whitty also
announced the Government would:
- adapt the Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme (LWDS) so that it can act to
prevent future welfare problems and environmental damage with lamb this
autumn;
- introduce a new regime for livestock movements in the autumn based on
veterinary risk assessments;
- make available a private storage aid scheme for sheepmeat
Lord Whitty said:
"The cost of FMD has been huge. The government has taken steps to control
the spiralling costs and eliminate abuse of the massive support paid to
contractors and farmers to fight this disease - by controlling C&D payments,
abolishing the standard valuation card, changing the valuation regime, and
reducing payments made under the LWDS to around 70% of market values.
[is this legal in a statutory eradication system ?]
The total cost to taxpayers of the disease is likely to be over £2 billion.
No other industry would receive that level of support where there was no
direct threat to public health
[except where it was a statutory program laid down in law by previous
governments and other countries around the world]
and where the problem had been compounded by existing trading practices.
[brought about by the influences of previous governments to encourage
greater food production and the eradicate of local abbatoirs etc]
The Government is committed to eradicating this disease and we are committed
to these costs. But we must change this system for the future. We need a new
regulatory framework; we need modern industry practices; never again can the
taxpayer be obliged to pay costs which in other industries would be absorbed
by the industry and its insurers.
"I am in the construction, not the demolition, business: we are here to
build a sustainable industry for the future, not destroy it.
"But there will be no straightforward return to any 'normality'. Sheep
farming will have to change. In the long term, support from government and
from the EU cannot be based on headage payments and production subsidies.
The public interest is twofold: ensuring a competitive and healthy sheep
sector - and we will help to modernise and restructure the industry and to
make it safer through for example the National Scrapie Plan - and in
ensuring environmental objectives for our flocks and our landscape. In the
medium term the pattern of government support will need to reflect these
objectives through for example agri-environmental schemes and
diversification - not promote over production and overgrazing.
"Some farmers may be prepared to restock at a less intensive level than
before, and we will encourage them to consider entering agri-environment
schemes such as Countryside Stewardship or ESAs.
[is there enough money in the pot for these schemes to cope with such an
increase in demand - usually they are over subscribed at the best of times
AFAIR]
Others might look at the possibility of converting to organic production, or
consider making greater use of quality assurance linked to investment in
marketing to obtain a higher premium for their produce; others might look at
using some of their land for woodland, or diversifying into non-agricultural
enterprises. These are the sorts of approaches that can be considered for
funding under our existing ERDP schemes.
"More generally, we will continue to press for reform of the CAP to bring
support prices closer to world levels and to decouple support payments from
production, shifting them more towards broader rural development and
environmental objectives."
Background information
1. Adaptation of the LWDS to deal with an estimated 1.3 million surplus
light lambs which would otherwise have been exported and which if not
removed will lead to severe welfare problems in the breeding flock and
environmental damage through overgrazing. New procedures will be put in
place to deal with these under LWDS as a separate stream. Details will be
announced later this month and the Scheme should operate from the beginning
of September.
2. The LWDS continues to slaughter and dispose of 10-20,000 animals a day. A
total of 1.3 million animals have been slaughtered to date and almost £125m
paid to farmers.
--
http://www.poultryscotland.co.uk http://www.henhouses.co.uk
http://www.kintaline.co.uk http://www.hardyplantcentre.co.uk
http://homepages.tesco.net/~welshcottage
Oz
>Sheep farming after Foot and Mouth: challenge and change :
>http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/fmd/farmers/recovery/sheep_farming.
>asp
>DEFRA news release (2 August 2001) [my comments in[]]
>
>The sheep industry will need to change in the aftermath of Foot and Mouth if
>it is to have a sustainable, environmentally-sound and prosperous future,
>Lord Whitty, DEFRA Food and Farming Minister said today.
>
>[how much more environmentally sound can the highland sheep industry be -
>devon;wales; dales; cumbria and scotlands?]
They could be sheep-free I suppose?
>He said that the industry would need to adapt to a future where there will
>be more emphasis on quality rather than quantity
>
>[could someone enlighten me on how this is achieved - ie what does he mean?]
This is vacu-speak. He doesn't know either but it sounds good to the
general population.
>and a system of subsidies which encourages enhancement.
>[what does he mean]
See above.
>Both the industry and Government needed to ensure that farming responded to
>market demands
>[the european market demanded light hill lambs - and lots of them]
Which we of course provided.
>and delivered the kind of landscape and wildlife habitats the public wanted.
>[grazing by sheep creates the wild highlands tourists love so well - no
>sheep = 10 ft bracken; rhodies; gorse; rushes in a matter of a year or two -
>sorry Caledonian Pine forests will take alot of time and lots of money]
Indeed.
>Speaking at the NFU Sheep Conference at Warwick today, Lord Whitty also
>announced the Government would:
>
>- adapt the Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme (LWDS) so that it can act to
>prevent future welfare problems and environmental damage with lamb this
>autumn;
? I think this means cull them all.
>and where the problem had been compounded by existing trading practices.
>
>[brought about by the influences of previous governments to encourage
>greater food production and the eradicate of local abbatoirs etc]
Absolutely, we have precisely the trading practices required and
encouraged by HMG. Does this mean they will chastise themselves?
>The Government is committed to eradicating this disease and we are committed
>to these costs. But we must change this system for the future.
This means no government eradication?
>We need a new
>regulatory framework;
Mostly at the ports and airports.
>we need modern industry practices;
Like the minimum number of UK abattoirs (as per HMG requirements)
>never again can the
>taxpayer be obliged to pay costs which in other industries would be absorbed
>by the industry and its insurers.
Does this mean they will just let producers go bust?
Or do we just scrap FMD controls and let producers vaccinate or not as
they chose?
>"I am in the construction, not the demolition, business: we are here to
>build a sustainable industry for the future, not destroy it.
Kinda tricky given the policies just outlined.
Perhaps he could explin how, precisely?
>"Some farmers may be prepared to restock at a less intensive level than
>before, and we will encourage them to consider entering agri-environment
>schemes such as Countryside Stewardship or ESAs.
>
>[is there enough money in the pot for these schemes to cope with such an
>increase in demand - usually they are over subscribed at the best of times
>AFAIR]
Nope.
>Others might look at the possibility of converting to organic production, or
>consider making greater use of quality assurance linked to investment in
>marketing to obtain a higher premium for their produce; others might look at
>using some of their land for woodland, or diversifying into non-agricultural
>enterprises. These are the sorts of approaches that can be considered for
>funding under our existing ERDP schemes.
And pigs might fly .....
--
Oz
Jim Webster
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oyoXlXAt...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> Jill writes
> >Sheep farming after Foot and Mouth: challenge and change :
>
>http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/fmd/farmers/recovery/sheep_farming
.
> >asp
> >DEFRA news release (2 August 2001) [my comments in[]]
> >
> >The sheep industry will need to change in the aftermath of Foot and Mouth
if
> >it is to have a sustainable, environmentally-sound and prosperous future,
> >Lord Whitty, DEFRA Food and Farming Minister said today.
> >
> >[how much more environmentally sound can the highland sheep industry be -
> >devon;wales; dales; cumbria and scotlands?]
>
> They could be sheep-free I suppose?
Already happening. At the insistance of this group I am quietly selling beef
cows with calves at foot and number of people who are hill/semi hill have
been saying to me things like "normally we buy in 200 ewes a year but no
more", or "if the government starts up a scheme for buying sheep quota then
we are slashing our numbers".
What the government forgets is that farmers deal with the reality as on the
ground, not some notional market, not some preferred policy, but what
actually pays on the ground. The writing is on the wall and one gets the
feeling that the moving finger isn't a big fan of sheep.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
Oz
>
>What the government forgets is that farmers deal with the reality as on
>the ground, not some notional market, not some preferred policy, but
>what actually pays on the ground. The writing is on the wall and one
>gets the feeling that the moving finger isn't a big fan of sheep.
Frankly I don;t think government has a clue how farmers behave.
The idea that they are running a family business just to survive is
quite beyond their ken.
--
Oz
Michael Saunby
Perhaps they expect that when something isn't of much use any more that the
owner will attempt to recover as much capital as possible. I realise this
isn't necessarily practical or desirable, especially across a whole
industry. But it doesn't cost anything to contact a local estate agent
have your farm advertised for sale at a suitable price - no need to consider
giving it away for now. (no need to bother with land agents, lets regard
agricultural land as worthless for now). I see that near here there's a 930
acre farm for sale, just £2million (includes 3 tied cottages). Now if half
the farms in the UK were to be advertised for sale during September and
October, I wonder what government would make of that?
Perhaps a few MPs would like to buy them up and keep the families on to
maintain them as a wildlife reserve. Since that's what some of them are
wanting anyway perhaps they should put their capital where their mouth is,
since the alternatives of them shutting up, or getting a clue are unlikely.
Michael Saunby
Jill
to buy them up and keep the families on to
>maintain them as a wildlife reserve. Since that's what some of them are
>wanting anyway perhaps they should put their capital where their mouth is,
>since the alternatives of them shutting up, or getting a clue are unlikely.
idea would soon sort the men from the boys - as DIM has found living of the
land means Chateaux in France is an expensive luxury :~{
Jill
Gerald L R Stubbs
from "Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> contains these words:
> Perhaps they expect that when something isn't of much use any more that the
> owner will attempt to recover as much capital as possible. I realise this
> isn't necessarily practical or desirable, especially across a whole
> industry. But it doesn't cost anything to contact a local estate agent
> have your farm advertised for sale at a suitable price - no need to consider
> giving it away for now. (no need to bother with land agents, lets regard
> agricultural land as worthless for now). I see that near here there's a 930
> acre farm for sale, just £2million (includes 3 tied cottages). Now if half
> the farms in the UK were to be advertised for sale during September and
> October, I wonder what government would make of that?
You raise some interesting points.
After the war home production was encouraged by means of
subsidies with the aim of getting consumers to buy home-
produced fare, and more importantly, to attempt to get the
country to be somewhere near self-sufficient in foodstuffs.
The interuption of imports during the war was a lesson
that sunk home. "Yes, we have no banananas!" : nor, for
that matter did we have sufficient meat, dairy products, hard
baker's grains or fruit to sustain the population. Rationing
lasted long after the war was over.
The world is now a different place : communications are
a world apart from 1945, and countries that were subsistance
economies then are now able to export to us on a 24 hour basis.
They are able to outprice us by a wide margin.
What has not changed, irrespective of our membership of the
EU, is that we are still a small island and subject to embargo
in the case of war. If there is a viable agricultural and
horticultural industry existant prior to the outbreak of hostilities,
then the country will scrape through, as it did during the
last war.
If, however, UK agriculture and horticulture is no longer
subvented ; ecological schemes replacing food production, then
we are at the mercy of the disruption of global trade.
When I was at Prep School I was taught English at one stage
by an old man called Prosser-Evans. He had served through the
first war and somehow come through alive, though not uninjured.
After the first war he firmly believed that it had been the war to
end all wars, as did many of his generation. They believed that
any thinking man would not wish to see a repetition of what had
taken place in France and Belgium during their war.
Twenty years later the battle was no longer confined to a few
fields in Europe, but extended throughout the entirety of Europe,
North Africa, the Middle East, The Pacific Rim, Indo-China,
China, and The Soviet Union. Countries outside the theatre of
war contributed men and armaments, namely South Africa,
African Colonies, the US, Australia and NZ.
After Germany had been defeated, the "Enola Gay" ended the
Pacific war by the expedient of dropping an atomic bomb on
Hiroshima, this followed the next day by another aircraft,
the name of which escapes me, dropping another bomb on
the city of Nagasaki. Both cities were wiped out. After the
second destruction of an entire city, Japan capitulated.
The nuclear age was born when the bomb was dropped.
Everyone thinks that the last war was the war to end all
wars........... That is what Mr. Prosser-Evans thought,
having experienced service during the First War.
Though I appreciate his point of view ( this, in 1960), I think
now that it was crook. There will be another war. Historically
speaking, it beggars belief that there will not be one in the next
ten years.
Does a contemporary government really wish the sufferage to
go through the privations of the last war when they have the
wherewithall to guard against that now ?
The answer to that is that they haven't even thought of it ;
being more concerned with the retention of power than the
benefit of the sufferage.
All the best,
Hamish Waugh
from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> You raise some interesting points.
> After the war home production was encouraged by means of
> subsidies with the aim of getting consumers to buy home-
> produced fare, and more importantly, to attempt to get the
> country to be somewhere near self-sufficient in foodstuffs.
> The interuption of imports during the war was a lesson
> that sunk home. "Yes, we have no banananas!" : nor, for
> that matter did we have sufficient meat, dairy products, hard
> baker's grains or fruit to sustain the population. Rationing
> lasted long after the war was over.
> The world is now a different place : communications are
> a world apart from 1945, and countries that were subsistance
> economies then are now able to export to us on a 24 hour basis.
> They are able to outprice us by a wide margin.
> What has not changed,
snipped
I wholeheartedly agree with you, and how unprepared we were for 1939,
less than a year earlier on September 30th. Chamberlain's photograph
was plastered all over the the front pages of the press waving a
piece of paper 'The Peace Accord' as he stepped from the plane at
Heston aerodrome on his return from Munich saying he believed it to
be "Peace for our time" as you go on to say we were very nearly
caught with our trousers down then, they are probably down past our knees now.
Again with FMD, how many people at the fore front of dealing with
this disaster even know what the Northumberland report is let alone
know what could be learned from it. OK this is a different strain but
surely some of the parameters and guidelines on dealing with it are the same