No milk to be spilt or cried over

It’s long been the cry of the dairy industry that farmers were being driven out of milk production because they got a pitiful price for their labours. Now though it seems the chickens are well and truly coming home to roost, or rather the cows, as well as the farmers are being retired and this has left the country short of milk.

Just last year the cows of Britain gave us fourteen billion litres of the white stuff for the breakfast table, or for the butter on your toast or for the cheddar cheese for your sandwiches. Suddenly, almost imperceptibly that’s slipped. Somewhere a billion litres has disappeared.

For the past decade, some say even longer, the dairy farming industry has lurched from one crisis to another, until now almost entirely over the price which farmers were getting, but now it’s all about the amount of milk those farms are producing.

Over that time the British dairy cow has worked harder and harder. It’s not unknown for some of the high yielding animals to give as much as ten thousand litres of milk a year, the average across the board is about seven thousand. The problem is that there are fewer and fewer cows to yield anything at all.

Ten years ago there were more than three million chewing the cud and trudging into the milking parlour twice a day to give us our morning pinta…or litre. Not that figure’s down to less than two million.

Ten years ago the price the farmer got for the effort put in by their cows was about twenty two pence per litre. Today it’s gone up… a massive four pence per litre to twenty six pence. In between then and now it fell to as little as just sixteen pence per litre, at some times of some years even less. And for almost all dairy farms the cost of production never fell below about seventeen pence per litre, often without taking into account any wage for the farmer.

It’s no surprise that many bailed out. In the early years of this century the National Farmers Union reckoned that as many as three a day were leaving the industry. The problem for those who were left was that very often the farmers might have been off to pastures new, but their cows were sold on to other farmers to make bigger and bigger herds.

At the turn of the century, the 21st, not the twentieth there were thirty two thousand dairy farms in the UK, just five years later that had shrunk to just under twenty five thousand…nut at the same time the average size of the herd had risen from 72.8 cows to 83.8. Bigger herds were a way of reducing costs. All the time though, the milk price was falling as the overall level of supply stayed constant.
The biggest factor was foreign competition for the milk products which could be imported. For instance those cheesy spreads that are so heavily advertised with smiling children going demented to get their hands on them, are often made with milk from cows in continental Europe, which is dried into powder, shipped in container lorries over to the UK, and then re-constituted into something the marketing wonks can really get their teeth into….mmmm….yummy….not. So in effect the only real UK market was for fresh milk and for cheese or butter production which wanted to use British milk.

The trouble was that all of this yummy stuff made from the dried produce of Polish or Austrian udders helped keep the market price of good old British Milk well and truly on the floor.

But those of us who were watching the industry unwind started to notice something. In 1984 the European community, as it was called then, introduced a limit on the amount of milk that every member state, and every farmer could produce. For the UK it was something in the region of fourteen million litres per year.

About four years ago I noticed that for the first time we seemed to be heading for an `undershoot of the quota limit’ in other words we were producing less milk than we were allowed to. At first this looked like it was just a temporary blip, but then it got bigger and bigger.

This was the point at which the national herd started to seriously decrease. Of course the milk powder could still come in from Poland, Austria or even Timbuktu, the trouble is that doorstep deliveries….those which still exist need fresh milk which is both expensive to transport and has a limited life. The same is true of cheese and butter production, and consumers are getting more and more fussy about where their food is from. Although the number of cows in the country had been decreasing for some time, those left were more productive. But now the hard working Holsteins who were left could no longer keep up. Shortages started to appear.

The culmination of this is that First Milk, one of the biggest farmer owner dairy co-operatives in the country is now cutting jobs at two of its cheese making plants because of shortages of milk.

And the question that now arises is whether paying farmers more in the difficult years might have encouraged more of them to stay in the industry. But there is a further problem. Even with the price of milk from the farm gate at a whopping 26 pence per litre, many dairy farms are still running at a loss because the cost of fuel and feed has gone through the roof.

So there are real fears that unless shoppers and the shops they use pay a lot more for their milk and dairy products shelves could be left empty.

So farewell then Lord Rooker

The news that Lord (call me Jeff) Rooker has gone off to spend more time decorating his house will come as a big disappointment to many farmers who believed that for once they had a farm minister who actually understood the pressures the industry faced.

It’s also a blow to those of us in the world of journalism who rage against the bland. Jeff Rooker was never a minister who could be accused of being dull. He was remarkably frank, and honest, even when that meant rocking boats.

I have two memories of encounters with him that stand out.

Back in the late nineteen nineties during his first tour of duty at what was then MAFF I was studio producing `Farming Today' in Birmingham on a live programme. Jeff Rooker, as he was then, was booked to come onto the programme, we thought in an interview conducted over the telephone. He would ring us. His press office insisted that we couldn’t ring him, as a minister it was unthinkable that we should have access to his home phone number - although it was in everybody's contact book anyway.

We waited, and waited, for the phone call until just two minutes before we went live at ten past six in the morning. Then the phone rang. It was the security guard on the front desk at the now long demolished Pebble Mill. “Is anybody there expecting a Mr Rooker? He’s in the front reception”

A mad dash ensued down the Pebble Mill corridor and the Minister, a Birmingham MP, was in front of the microphone with five minutes to spare. He could talk for England and I spent a very entertaining fifteen minutes chatting to him on the steps of Pebble Mill as he left the building after the programme.

My other memory was the Royal Show of 2007, a matter of days after Gordon Brown was crowned Prime Minister. The Obligatory reshuffle saw the replacement of David Milliband by Hilary Benn, but much to everybody’s surprise Lord Rooker stayed, infact I think he was even promoted up the ministerial ladder. No-one was more surprised than the noble Lord himself.

As we stood outside in a rare moment of sunshine at that year’s rain sodden event he told me that he’d just assumed he’d be booted out to make way for new blood, and had gone home to complete some much needed decorating when the surprise phone call came asking him to remain in the department as minister for Farming and Animal Health.

It’s not unusual to get ministers who will be frank and honest off the record, it was a joy to have a minister who would do that when the microphones were turned on.

Pigs might fly....?

For as long as I can remember farmers have complained that they are ill used by the people they supply, whether it's the supermarkets, the processors, the wholesalers. Farmers are and have been under-valued by just about everybody. In many ways they have had some justification for this, and although at times it might seem like synchronised whingeing, it has to be said that the retail environment is very competitive... cut throat perhaps. The main purpose in life of the supermarket buyer is to get the produce his or her bosses sell... from the field to the checkout with the greatest possible profit, or margin possible.

This is what buyers do, this is what supermarkets do... it's capitalism. This would be all fine and dandy if it had been a relationship of equals. It isn't though. The retail sector is dominated by about four major players, with Tesco in the lead, followed, by varying degrees of proximity by Sainsburys, ASDA, Morrison and some of the smaller rivals like the Co-op, Waitrose and in the bargain basement Aldi and Lidl. There isn't a huge scope for choice and it's getting narrower. The Co-op recently swallowed rivals Somerfield.

In the past farmers allege that the supermarkets have had an unfair advantage because farmers haven't had anywhere else to go. But there has been a change, a correction in the balance. Perhaps one of the turning points for this has been the change to the subsidy system which brought an end to the payment of subsidies....sorry support payments..... to farmers according to how much food they produce, but according to the area of land they manage.

This has removed for instance the necessity for farmers to produce a crop on every field. This was the whole idea of the reform of the common agricultural policy. Farmers wouldn't produce every bit of food the can, they would instead produce only what they could sell to the market.

In the case of farmers in England, a range of about a dozen different payments linked to the area they cropped, or the number of animals they have in their fields, was rolled into on Single Farm Payment. Off course the combination of a payment based on the area of land farmed, and a complex computer system to administer that new system was a recipe for disaster, and a cock-up of biblical proportions ensued. That was then, and after a couple of years of chaos, the system has now calmed down a bit.

Throw into the mix a genuine contraction is some sectors, for instance a sizable number of pigs seem to have been lost from production in Holland and Denmark, as has happened here. UK Pig numbers have fallen from over eight hundred breeding sows in 1999 to about four hundred and fifty thousand now... and you have the makings of a shortage of supply.

In the `Good?' old days, all the processors and supermarkets had to do was to wave the `import' stick to get UK prices tumbling. That isn't possible now, and there has been something of a change on the part of consumers. Shoppers now want to see the `Union Flag' on their packets of bacon. The net result is that even if retailers and processors wanted to squeeze the UK farmer, these days when it comes to pigs their options are somewhat limited. The result of this is that the price of meat at the checkout has increased by over 17% according to the latest Consumer Prices index from the Office of National Statistics. Bad news for the Treasury and the Governor of the Bank of England who is now having to write letters of explanation to the Chancellor, explaining why inflation has gone above 2%, so often now that a fresh stationary order will be required.

In the case of Beef, this is complicated even further by the growing affluence of countries in the Far East. There has been a massive increase in demand for instance from China and South Korea, combined with drought problems in Australia, this has increased the demand for UK beef exports. This very interesting graph of prices shows the massive increase in both beef and pig prices year on year. The jump in the price of lamb is more measured. This is partly due to the fact that demand is more sedate, and supply has remained high since the problems with Foot and Mouth disease in 2007. However there could be a price increase next year, after research from the Scottish Agricultural College discovered that there has been a fall in sheep numbers in the Highlands. The other bluebottle buzzing around the ointment is cost. Over the past year there has been a massive rise in all manner of inputs, from oil, to soya, to wheat and barley. Some of those have now stabilised or even come down (wheat and oil)... but other continue to go up. In a way this year's poor harvest conditions may have helped livestock farmers. because so much milling wheat is of poor quality it will have to be sold as animal feed. This will mean the price of feed based on wheat could well fall... See once again the `Farmer's Weekly' graphs.

All of this leaves farmers in an unusual positioin of power. The retailers are desperate to compete with each other on price, but squeezing suppliers isn't an option. In the case of beef the meat could simply end up going elsewhere. The ready supply of Brazilian beef which used to be used as a weapon to keep the price of the domestic product down is bogged down inthe fallout from their foot and mouth problems, and in that sense beef farmers really do have the option to have a much greater influence over the price. Many farmers are reluctant to excercise this muscle as the good times, such as they are, may not last. Many a combine harvester bought in the wake of last year's bumper crop has lain idle this year as the heaven opened.

The bottom line for farmers is profitability, and whether that can be sustained. Lats year pig farmers were losing about £25 per animal. This year it's a profit of £8 per pig. The big question they're all asking if whether that will be enough to re-invest in buildings and equipment, or whether their hand-to-mouth existence will continue to keep their farms on the edge of viability. In other words `Will pigs fly?'

The badger lives...for the moment?

It’s unusual to have a minister, who tells it the way it is, but Lord (Call me Jeff) Rooker invariably has something interesting to say…even if you can see the fixed smiles on the faces of his civil servants begin to sag slightly as their minister wanders dangerously off the path of righteousness and says something interesting into a microphone. More about Lord Rooker later but first my own failings.

I gave up biology at the age of thirteen, having to ditch it in favour of physics and chemistry, and history at what was then…in a more innocent age, called `O-levels’.

Sadly the glamorous world of animal science lost a razor sharp mind to the rather humdrum life of a radio journalist.

As a consequence I haven’t a clue whether it is badgers which cause the spread of Bovine TB amongst cattle, or whether cattle spread it to each other with badgers as collateral damage.

For farmers with cattle though the indisputable fact is that their animals are dying because of the disease… or more accurately because of the culling measures to control its spread. Just over fourteen thousand have been killed as a result of control measure in the first three months of this year alone. Ten years ago less than half that number were dispatched in the whole year.

And it costs money too. Last year about eighty million pounds to the taxpayer, and millions more to the farming industry.

The possibility of a link between badgers and the spread of bovine TB first emerged blinking into the daylight in the early nineteen seventies when a badger which had died from bovine TB was found on a farm in Gloucestershire, in an area with a high number of cattle infections, technically known as breakdowns. An extensive programme of badger culling followed in the area and bovine TB disappeared from there, at least for the next ten years.

There followed years of the kind of deliberations which make this country great… or not as some would see it. Inquiries, followed reviews which went hand in hand with investigations…. And then in the late nineteen nineties a trial was ordered to see what impact different culling regimes might have on the spread of the disease. The Krebs trial, overseen by John… now Lord Krebs, an eminent zoologist, involved splitting up areas where bovine TB was rife into three zones, known as triplets. In one zone all the badgers were culled, in another badgers were only killed where there were outbreaks of TB, reactive culling, and the third zone was used as a control where no badgers were culled.

The trial was seriously disrupted by the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001 when no testing could take place because of access restrictions to the countryside, and received another huge blow two years later when reactive culling was suspended because it appeared to make the problem worse by dispersing the sick badgers to other uninfected areas.

The Krebs trial or to give it it’s `Sunday Name’ the Randomised Badger Culling Trial was overseen by a group of independent scientists, the Independent Scientific Group ISG which was asked to analyse and draw conclusions from what information was available from the Krebs Trial. Under John Bourne a formerly Professor of Animal Health at Bristol University the ISG deliberated for nearly ten year, and concluded that although total or almost total elimination of badgers over a wide area might have a role to play in the control of bovine TB the type of local culls envisaged by farmers would result in the `control of cattle TB in a manner which is economically viable’

Just a matter of weeks after the ISG’s recommendations were published, Sir David King the government’s own chief scientist lobbed a hand grenade into the proceedings, saying badgers represented a massive reservoir of TB in the wild, and called for selective culls in areas affected by the disease.

Which is where it’s very useful to have a minister who actually has something enlightening to say, and my ears pricked up at this year’s annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union, where during a debate which he was actually chairing …. I can think of few other government ministers could pull that one off … Lord Rooker put his finger on the reason why it had taken so long to reach a decision on whether or not badger culling should go ahead.

Agriculture Minister Lord Rooker

He basically said… and I’m working purely from memory here, as I was busy dealing with something else at the time and only half listening to the debate… `Look guys… I know you’re desperate … I know you want a decision, but the truth of the matter if that ministers can only act one scientific advice where that advice is clear cut, and at the moment there are two eminent scientific viewpoints which disagree, and if we’re not absolutely certain about the science, the first thing that will happen is an application for judicial review… and then the whole matter would be dragged through the courts just prolonging the difficulty of actually tackling the problem.’

My apologies if I didn’t get the exact wording of what he said but I think that’s a pretty accurate reflection. And it was fascinating, perhaps the government wasn’t scared of the public reaction to a possible cull, it was the likelihood that it would all end up in the courts, and if there’s one thing that politicians hate more than public disapproval of their policies, it’s the judiciary telling them they goofed.

Ironically as rumours of the government deciding against a cull start to circulate, so do rumours of possible legal action by the NFU. In the end the winners from bovine TB might turn out to be M’learned friends.

A Hunting here we go again?

Deep in the bowels of the countryside’s awkward squad something stirs. The Countryside Alliance is on the march again or at least taking to its 4x4s. Having declared that the Hunting Act of 2004 was the most useless, unenforceable discredited piece of legislation ever passed by parliament the CA is taking advantage of the change in the political wind to start the practical business of getting rid of it.

With the very real prospect that Labour might not win the next election, and that David Cameron might be heading for the kind of landslide which saw Tony Blair and New Labour swept to power in 1997, the Alliance has now set up a committee to get the act repealed.

The Alliance has always said it is `apolitical’ but it’s quite clear from what their members say that there won’t be many tears shed over the demise of Labour, as it will serve the hunting lobby’s purposes well.

David Cameron has promised a free vote on repealing the act if he becomes Prime Minister. It’s fairly safe to assume the outcome would be in favour of ditching a piece of legislation which is loathed by the Tory faithful and some `Blairites’ as a symbol of what is perceived as the New Labour class struggle, and one of the few victories for the old guard over the `Modernisers’.

However there are some fences to jump first. For a start the Tories will need a majority… not just because they will need to overcome any anti-hunting sentiment in their own party…although the prime supporter of a ban, Maidstone MP Anne Widdicombe is standing down from Parliament at the next election, but it will make sure the act is repealed without too much hassle. The other possible problem is that the Tories will be running around repealing just about anything they can get their hands on…and supporters of hunting will want their cause to be at the head of the queue.

They’ll have to mud-wrestle for this one with the Estate Agents who want rid of Home Information Packs, and the NIMBYs who want eco-towns demolished before they’re even built…Then there’s the small matter of the economy to sort out. It will be a busy first parliament. If there is a sizeable Conservative majority though, repealing the Hunting Act will be relatively straightforward and the House of Lords won’t throw up too many objections so it probably won’t take up too much parliamentary time.

One of the biggest difficulties, `politically’ over hunting is that it’s the kind of thing that makes the `New Tories’ nervous, and worry that they might be seen as reverting to their old ways. Appealing to the modern middle classes might not sit too well with packs of hounds and followers chasing the fox. The urban voters the Tories need to win over are still squeamish about the idea of hounds closing in on the fox, even if in many cities foxes have become a nuisance.

There is another problem too. During the campaign against the hunting bill there was some support for a `Middle Way’ option, where hunts would be licensed. This was fiercely opposed by a lot of hunts. The Alliance will be watching closely to see that the act is repealed with no strings attached.

Get orrf my beach….

An open access sign holds up the sky in County Durham

I don’t know if you’ve noticed the sky falling in? I haven’t and it’s frankly quite disappointing. It was due to happen on the 20th of September 2004 with the introduction of the right to roam, or Open Access as it is correctly titled.

I seem to recall that the exact timetable for the countryside’s descent into hell consisted, in the first wave, of oiks blundering around accompanied by a synchronised display of falling into potholes. This would be closely followed by a second wave of raves… with all of these unwashed young people being smelly, and taking their `Class As, and their Es’ listening to their boom-boom music…. (actually if either Plastikman or AGF had been on the bill I'd have been down there with the kids myself)

This would then be followed by a rearguard action of Gore-tex wearing storm-troopers rambling across the countryside leaving sheep traumatised by being exposed to the fashion crimes of the middle aged.

I gazed at the sky, but it stayed firmly in place… eventually the sheep lost interest… that’s how sheep are…. dying is the highlight of the average sheep’s life.

Infact the biggest complaint from landowners seemed to be that not enough townies were coming out to trample the countryside and put money into the tills of teashop and B&B owners.

Undaunted by militant apathy, the hoards of barbarians have set their sights on another target. Having fought the battle to roam on mountain, moor, heath, down and common land….they’re fighting on the beaches next. The open access principle is to be extended to the coastline of England – all of it. In effect a linear footpath will be created thousands of miles long, hugging the coastal curves, and despite the fact that the government says that private gardens and parks will be exempt, landowners are not happy. For a start they won’t be compensated, and secondly the masses may well be allowed to wander onto previously private beaches. Then there are claims that lots of properties will be devalued. Would this be `devalued’ as in - property prices are tumbling anyway?

As with the previous open-access proposals the landowners aren't overly keen on the great unwashed traipsing across their land and they certainly don’t want them on their private beaches.

Would I want people wandering around next to my garden, with their noisy children and their vile mongrel dogs?

Well actually they do. Fifteen yards away from where I’m sitting, directly outside my front gate is a very heavily used footpath, what was, in medieval times, the main road from our village to the next. On sunny days like today dozens of people will walk along it, with their dogs and their children, and in the winter they might even wear Gore-tex. Am I bovvered? No actually I’m too busy watching the sky to see if it’s fallen in yet. Of course if the hoi polloi are let loose on the waterfront, goodness knows what will happen then.

I remember doing some interviews about this issue last year, and at that time it was actually very hard, if not impossible, to find anybody in the North of England with coastal land who was themselves bovvered, perhaps they’re just chilled and sky-gazing like me.