Re: 2006 SFP forms (england).


"Tim Jones" <wildenfarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:444013ee.48488125@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:07:15 +0100, "Jim Webster"
<Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Lobbying organisations who proclaim in print to their members that the
government are lying bastards have a very low success rate with
government

Who said anything about print, I'm talking about one to one
conversations where they refused to even recognise or acknowledge my
concerns. They didn't need to make any public statement just say "we
are aware of the problem" in order to put a paying members mind at
rest.

The solution is really to get involved in it yourself. Certainly the NFU
suffers from the problem that it is regarded by sons as a dumping ground for
fathers, to get them off the farm and out of the way.
Really it should be the other way round.




A tightening of who can administer drugs to livestock, what drugs
can
be
administered and who can stock them.

Need scareful negotiation on how it is applied, but is probably
needed
if we are to maintain the efficacy of available drugs.

Nothing to do with that, it is that vets will prescribe, you then take
the
prescription to a chemist and buy the drug separately (they already do
this
in some member states).

Why is this a problem? I would have thought that with a sensible
control on prescription charges it will ultimately reduce drug costs
for us all?

Not a problem, just drive into town when you need a bottle of calcium for
the cow that is down. Find a chemist that stocks it.


If calcium, Glucose. Mag etc are genuinely included in this perhaps we
and our reporesenatives should be focusing on this a bit more instead
of putting quite so much effort into late SFP payments.


The problem is that the discussions are being carried on at a level where we
have no input, and find it very difficult to discover exactly what is being
discussed, and so far there has been nothing formalised. Also the EU is very
bad at issuing consultations down to member state level.


I could carry on but have more sheep to lamb, most of these
potential
regs have a sound reason behind them, we just need to ensure they
are
set up and enforced in a workable manner AND amke sure we pass any
costs on down the chain. Maybe we can manage the first part of this
but I suspect we will once agian buckle under the second and then
blame everyone except ourselves

sorry but how are you going to do this?
Believe me if you have a method then every industry organisation will
beat a
path to your door to listen to your words of wisdom


Why do sheep farmers let their sheep leave the market at a price that
they consider unviable. We have the raw materials, the power is in
our hands. We can't use that power as long as there are farmers
selling below the cost of production, we all have to show some common
sense and expect/ask a reasonable price, those who don't are the ones
who shafting the rest of us IMO.

So you refuse to sell below the cost of production?
Jack the price up and see how fast the imports pour in
You have no power at all.

So whats your alternative vision for the future of UK agriculture? If
we don't even try we're definitely f8$£ed.

We are going to be in a world market. But we are going to face restrictions
our competitors don't face. Not only that but in England we will not have
any government support (here I mean understanding and encouragement, nothing
to do with money) which even the Scots and Welsh will get never mind the
rest of the EU.
Basically in England Agriculture does go seriously belly up every so often
and this is something that could happen again.
But I think we could be seeing a turn round at world market level that might
save us.
For cereals and oil seeds it could be that energy crops will take the
surplus off the market. Yes the UK government will fanny about and achieve
nothing, but because it is a world market, other countries will make big
steps and our grain will go abroad to feed or fuel them and this will drag
our price up.

For cattle, I wait to see how things go after the export ban is lifted. It
does look as if consumption world wide is going up and again, the shortage
of cereals etc will discourage South America from expanding their livestock
as fast as they now intend. There could be a core suckler herd supported by
subsidy as necessary for mixed grazing for environmental purposes. The rest
of the herd will probably shrink because of low returns

I did some calculations. In the building where I fattened some cattle this
winter I could have comfortably stored four or five caravans at six pounds a
week. Even at a good beef price, even allowing for business rates, the
caravans paid far far better

For dairy I have genuine worries. The contacts are too restrictive, the
product has to be sold that day or the day after, the dairy farmer is
trapped. Personally I think that the supermarkets have pretty well got the
dairy industry where they want it. Whether, when it has shrunk to the size
they need they will then let prices drift up slightly, or whether they will
let it shrink to a level which supports liquid milk and a few high value
speciality cheese makers I don't know.

Sheep? If you are only in food production it is going to be tough. Sheep for
much of the UK are an environmental management tool and will continue to get
funding as that. Remember that that is important in the eyes of a lot of
environmental organisations and even government has to pay lip service to
it.
If we lost the sheep in the lakes, and started having summer grass fires
that meant the evacuation of places like Ambleside, the cost to the tourism
industry would probably be more that the entire lowland sheep industry is
worth.
If you want to stay in lowland sheep, you will have to produce to the same
sort of price as New Zealand and accept the fact that your market price will
be altered by the comings and goings of what might be regarded as
'environmental' sheep.

--

Jim Webster.
Pat Gardiner, Five years raving about bent vets and still no result



.

Loading