Comment
Comment
That nice Nick needs muscles
Hi, Im Nick. Thats typical of the greeting you get when the minister of agriculture first meets you. And it is that self-deprecating style which stole the show at the NFUs annual conference last week.
NFU president Ben Gill gave Nick Brown the warmest welcome of any minister in recent years. And from then on the farming audience were putty in his hands. The volume of appreciation at the end of the ministers speech belied the difficulties facing so many in the audience.
Does he deserve such homage? The ministers speech didnt raise any eyebrows but it was delivered with easy humour and the convincing sentiment of I am here to learn, not lecture.
And that has been the hallmark of his short tenure in office. He has been out and about meeting real farmers, with real problems in a hectic schedule.
At the conference he fielded questions from the farming audience with the ease of someone who has been in the industry for years – not just over six months. Okay his flunkies will have prepared the groundwork, but he was convincing in his understanding of the difficulties facing the industry – whether it was on pesticides or poultry, beef or brassicas.
Mr Browns arrival couldnt be better timed. His open approach is without doubt what our beleaguered industry needs. On integrity and intelligence he wins hands down.
But what about influence? He was quick to admit that although he would not support a pesticide tax himself, there were others in the cabinet that could overule him.
This example illustrates the key issue: Mr Brown may not have the muscle in his own cabinet that British farmers need. It is no secret that agriculture is at the bottom of the cabinet heap – it was under Conservative rule and is so now.
If farming does not have the influence in Westminster it needs, where does it leave British farming in Europe? Perhaps it is time for Mr Nice Guy to take up muscle building.
Trading places
BREATHE a sigh of relief. It seems farmers are no longer the villains of the piece – that dubious honour has gone to the supermarkets.
Stories about sky-high retailing profits, deserted town centres, and bully-boy marketing tactics have edged agriculture out of the headlines.
Meanwhile the farmer is being looked on more kindly. At long last, consumers are beginning to appreciate the truth about the agricultural recession. The sad plight of livestock farmers and the difficulties faced in all sectors have struck home.
But when shoppers take their trolleys up the aisles, the prices are just as high as ever. Lamb on the meat counter is still a luxury item. Yet sheep are being abandoned outside RSPCA offices, because the feed bills are too expensive and market prices too high.
The problem is not confined to the livestock sector. Research by land agents Knight Frank show that over the past 20 years, the cost of a loaf of bread has quadrupled. In the same period, wheat prices have fallen in real terms. Where is the money going?
The review of supermarket profits, undertaken by the Office of Fair Trading, is due out shortly. Lets hope it comes up with some ideas on how to bridge the gap between farm gate prices and those in the shopping basket.
Wise up on resistance
THE warning bell has sounded – growers ignore it at their peril. Wheat mildew resistant to the strobilurins has been identified in northern Germany and it has multiplied fast, taking the scientists by surprise (see page 14).
The problem was exacerbated by little-and-often spray programmes which gave the fungus the chance to adapt. That could easily happen here.
Naturally, the agchem companies response is to suggest that cutting rates is unwise – but they would say that, wouldnt they. Strob chemistry is expensive; its inevitable that rates will fall.
More helpful would be advice on the best triazole/strob mixtures for lessening the risk of resistant mildew. With T1 spray timings approaching, that information is needed now.
The agchem manufacturers have a responsibility to their customers, and should do all they can to prolong the effective life of these products. It must make sense for their profits, too.
They should bite the bullet and issue guidelines soon, even if it means – horror of horrors – they have to endorse another companys fungicide. With earlier resistances, growers have learnt lessons the hard way: prevention is better than cure.
Lets turn the CAP green
THE Government has said, many times, that it wants to bolt on environmental benefits to the reformed CAP. The public and growers alike would applaud this sentiment.
But so far successive agriculture ministers have failed to come up with practical ways of achieving this. Theres the huge problem of defining exactly what an "environmental benefit" is. Then theres the problem of policing and monitoring environmental impact on the countryside.
Last but not least, are the economics. UK growers have to be allowed to operate in a way which generates a profit – or the system is unsustainable, however you define the term.
So congratulations are due to the Wildlife Trusts, a body which has devised the first practical answer to this knotty problem. In a comprehensive report, it outlines a way which an agri-environment scheme could be fitted to the support system. Farmer input at the design stage has made all the difference – this scheme is one which includes muddy boot knowledge of wildlife and agricultural production.
The report suggests that payments of up to £200/ha could be made available to more environmentally proactive farmers for managing or creating habitats such as hedgerows or ponds. And it outlines exactly how.
If every grower joined the scheme, the cost to the taxpayer would be a maximum of £1.6 billion – which is about half of what is currently paid out to UK growers under the CAP.
So the books could be balanced by switching half of the CAP cash into agri-environment linked payments instead. Then, once production subsidies come to an end, the framework would be in place to support environmental objectives.
The Wildlife Trusts report should be on the table in front of agriculture minister Nick Brown when the Agenda 2000 debate starts next month. Nothing remotely similar has been suggested by other EU states. If the Government is really serious about environmental reforms, then this scheme shows how it might be achieved.
Organics has a bad hair day
WONDERING whether to switch into organics? If you can believe the marketing hype, its where the profits are for the future. But is it a real market – or the retailers creation?
Try this for size, as spotted on the toiletries counter just a few shelves away from the organic produce: "Herbal essences shampoo – with herbs grown under certified organic conditions, no petrochemicals or pesticides, in mountain spring water."
Thats not all. The plastic container is "recyclable", the formula is "biodegradable" and no animal by-products are used. The ingredients derive from "pure, renewable plant sources" only.
What a pity this image of perfect political correctness has to be spoilt by that mandatory full list of ingredients, as follows:
Aqua, sodium laureth sulfate, cocamidopropyl betaine, sodium lauryl sulfate, linoleamidopropyl pg-dimonium chloride phosphate, parfum, cocamide mea, sodium chloride, dmdm-hydantoin, methyl paraben, disodium edta copper, citric acid, rosmarinus officinalis, jasminium officinale, citrus aurantium dulcis, propylene glycol, diazolidinyl-urea, magnesium nitrate, magnesium chloride, methylchloroisothiazolinone, methyl isothiazolinone, Cl 19140, Cl 60730, Cl 15510 disodium edta, propyl-paraben, benzoic acid….
Now thats a tank mix and a half; would it get through the rigours of the PSD testing system?
Perhaps our agchem manufacturers could pick up a few marketing tips. A few pretty flowers on the pack, a few choice words – and they could be selling that Roundup or Mantra to a whole new clientele.
Joking apart, we need to beware. A cynic might worry that the organic option is being built on a foundation of lies, damned lies and …clever marketing. Is this the case?