David Evans, Morrisons head of agriculture, said consumers had strong views about animal welfare, but few of them really understood the issues or the steps farmers were taking to produce high-welfare products.

Speaking during a debate on welfare at the Pig and Poultry LIVE event in Stoneleigh on Wednesday (15 May), Mr Evans said the sectors had to come up with simple messages about welfare if they were going to change consumer buying habits.

“Consumer perception of welfare is very important because perception is what makes them buy certain products,” he told the delegation of more than 650 producers and industry officials.

“But they don’t really understand where food comes from so expecting them to understand welfare is a place too far. The message around it has to be very simple.”

Ed Garner of Kantar Wolrdpanel said ‘single issue’ welfare messages such as free range and fair trade were the kind of simple messages consumers understood and were willing to buy into.

“Consumers want improved welfare but it has to be at a realistic price which gives them emotional satisfaction of purchasing it,” he said.

“That’s why free-range eggs sales have done so well. Even if they don’t entirely understand it, they know what free-range is about.

“But that’s also where more confusing concepts like Red Tractor and organic fall down – it creates a niche which only some understand and not everyone is willing to pay for.”

Peter Kendall, NFU President, said tackling consumer perceptions about how animals were reared had to be high on livestock farmers’ agenda, particularly as retailer and government rules tended to address public concerns.

“Animal welfare is a difficult, emotive subject and we need to have an honest discussion if we are to give consumers a reason to pick British food,” he said.

“Welfare is all about perception and that’s why we need to explain to the public. Without that discussion, the danger is UK producers are forced to have higher standards through regulation, but retailers import cheaper foods from elsewhere.”

With an increased interest in traceability and provenance in the wake of the horsemeat scandal, now was the perfect opportunity for farmers to find ways to talk to consumers, gain their trust and boost sales of British food, he added.

Sandra Edwards, Professor of Agriculture at Newcastle University, agreed industry efforts to gain the trust of producers were key.

“I would like to see us go back to consumers trusting farmers to have the best knowledge about what is good for the animals,” she said. “But that trust can only be based on the information they receive.”

The post Be open about welfare to help shoppers chose British, farmers told appeared first on Caroline Stocks.

FFA chairman David Handley said processors were running out of time for discussions and unless more money made its way back to farmers then they would be forced to take action.

Insisting protests were a last resort, Mr Handley said expected price rises in February had not materialised, while prices looked set to remain the same in March – a situation which was unsustainable for many producers.

“It’s clear the market isn’t working,” he told FFA members during a meeting in Derby on Wednesday.

“We need to apply pressure. Tell your processor you’re not satisfied, use the voluntary dairy code of conduct and contact your MP and MEP and tell them the price you’re receiving isn’t sustainable.

“If all that fails then perhaps we could say say we have tried everything and unfortunately have to go back on the picket line. We have to use protest with negotiation and communication.”

More than 150 farmers at the meeting voted overwhelmingly in favour of holding further protests if milk prices were not increased in the coming weeks.

But Mr Handley warned that protests would only be effective if producers pledged to come out in force.

“Unless the majority of dairy farmers are prepared to come up and do something abut the price issue there’s no point in 40 or 50 people turning up outside milk processors,” he said.

“We put £300m in the industry in three months last year. We could do it again if everyone stuck together, but it won’t happen because if don’t all stand together.

“If we sit quiet and do nothing then everyone will think things are okay. You have an obligation to tell people how bad things are.”

Urging producers to work together to raise their concerns, Mr Handley said farmers should also take more direct action such as canceling their contracts to send a message to processors.

“Supplies are tight and processors have invested a lot in processing. If you move your milk away processor’s costs go up and they become less competitive.

“You might not get more money but it will make them sit up and listen, especially if you do it together.”

Farmers also needed to make better use of the voluntary code of conduct if tougher action was going to be taken over processors, he added.

“I am being told it’s useless, but unless you use it and we can show it is not being adhered to by processors then the government wont look at legislation.

“You have to use the tools available and start making more noise.”

Cracks in the Coalition

The Dairy Coalition is still vital to securing the industry’s aims, despite cracks appearing over disagreements about protests, FFA chief David Handley said.

Speaking to a dairy farmer meeting in Derby on Wednesday (13 February), Mr Handley admitted the coalition of dairy industry and farming bodies set up to fight for fairer milk price was failing to see eye to eye on some issues.

But he insisted it was vital the group, which includes bodies such as the FFA, the NFU and the Tenant Farmers Association, continued to work together.

“Cracks are starting to appear, but there are positives,” he said. “The NFU has said it will not condemn any protests if we deem them necessary, but they will not utilise their network to notify members of protests and when they are being held.

“I wont argue with that because that’s their right, but if we think protests are necessary that shouldn’t stop us.”

But Paul Rowbottom, FFA co-ordinator for the East Midlands, was more scathing about the union’s position.

“If the NFU cant support the industry they why should we support the NFU?” he said. “We need to get out there and keep the momentum going, not sit around here complaining.”

This article first appeared on www.farmersguardian.com

The post Dairy protests could begin again ‘in weeks’ appeared first on Caroline Stocks.

Either way, it’s a gouda one. (Sorry).

The post Whey to go appeared first on Caroline Stocks.

By 2017, provided the Conservatives win the next general election, the public will be given the chance to vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union.

The UK’s current dubiousness around the EU is, according to Irish MEP and agriculture committee member Maireed McGuiness, bewildering and frustrating the rest of Europe.

But it seems that unless Mr Cameron can rejiggle EU policies to take back powers (though he didn’t say which ones), then calls to leave would be accelerated (although he would’t be drawn on saying whether he’d campaign for that either).

No one’s saying the EU is perfect, but regardless of what happens, it’s simplistic to think the country’s problems would disappear if we exited the bloc.

It’s even more simplistic to think that British agriculture wouldn’t be affected.

With that in mind, here are some thoughts on how UK farmers would be hit:

UK farming bottom line

About half of the UK’s total farming income comes through the CAP. Take away European farm subsidies, and about £3bn is wiped off UK farming’s bottom line on the spot.

UKIP reckons that wouldn’t be a big deal, claiming taxpayers would happily hand over a few billion quid for farmers seeing as it’d cost them less than EU membership currently does.

But in reality, the likelihood of the UK Treasury signing a cheque for that much, particularly in the current economic climate, is slim-to-none.

Add to that the argument that EU membership is the only thing stopping our ministers from phasing out the single payment, then farmers can wave goodbye to subsidies the second we close the door on Europe.

Admittedly many producers who argue against the CAP and it’s market-inflating mechanisms might welcome such a move.

But it’s worth bearing in mind that while we wouldn’t have subsidies, the rest of Europe would continue to receive the SFP, and if countries like France got their way, subsidies to farmers might actually increase.

In such a situation, UK farmers would find it tough to compete against producers receiving that level of support.

Generating trade

Another advantage of EU membership is free trade.

The EU is the main export market for our agricultural produce. Worth about £9.4bn to the country in 2011, it gives us unlimited access to more than 500m consumers across 27 countries. What’s more, that share is growing, despite the Eurozone crisis.

In the words of Tory MEP Richard Ashworth, putting that export market at risk is madness.

If the UK did leave the EU, then we would be left in a situation similar to Norway, who pays a €1.8bn sum into an EU structural fund each year and pays an export tariff on agricultural good.

The thing is, with one-sixth of the world’s gas and oil reserves and a titchy population of under 5m, Norway can deal with that. The UK on the other hand, with is 63m people, limited fuel resources and an economy depending on the manufacture of hi-tech goods, would find it a bit of a struggle.

The most recent figures touted put a neighbourhood status tariff for the UK just over 5% of traded goods.

We currently trade about £150bn, which works out at a £7.5bn tariff, plus a load of added hassle in terms of paperwork and import duties. Suddenly our produce looks a whole lot less appealing to would-be importers.

Influencing policy

Perhaps UKIP’s biggest claim is that leaving the EU will get us away from legislation, but it’s hard to see how that would work.

If we expect to continue to trade with Europe, withdrawing from the EU means that the majority of the UK’s export industry will be subject to the same rules and regulations, except we will have had no part in writing them.

In addition, UK ministers would still have to draw up regulations to protect the environment, animal welfare, production standards and so on.

UK civil servants have a rather nasty habit of gold-plating directives which come from the EU, and contrary to popular belief, it is the EU which puts the brakes on some of their dafter ideas.

Without the calming influence of Brussels bureaucrats, our civil servants would be free to go wild with their gold-plating wands. In other words, expect more legislation, not less.

If the government did take the unlikely decision to go for less regulation compared to the EU, we would be seen to be implementing lower standards for our neighbours – a move one Brussels official described as a potential PR disaster for UK farming.

The post Are UK farmers better off in the EU? appeared first on Caroline Stocks.

“Working out which energy supplier is cheapest can be desperately complicated, but it’s worth making the effort,” says  Andrew Kneeshaw, managing director of energy specialists the Farm Energy Centre.

“A lot of emphasis is put on renewable energy being the way to cut energy costs, but there is a lot more that can be done before the renewables stage by getting on a decent tariff.

“Some savings can be quite big – 20-25% in some cases. If it changing tariffs saves you £15,000 in electricity costs, it’s worth looking into.”

Mr Kneeshaw says calculating whether you currently have a good deal from your energy supplier should be the first step.

For small and medium-sized energy users on a standard tariff – which covers about 90% of UK farms – using the NFU’s Farm Energy Service (see box below) will give some indication of what prices are available.

Energy contracts for larger users, such as intensive pig and poultry units, large diary farms or horticulture businesses, are usually metered and energy rates are determined by their profile of energy use.

“At the end of their contract they can access their meter data for the year and send it to a number of electricity companies to quote against so they get a competitive rate,” Mr Kneeshaw says.

Know the market 

Getting to know the market it another key to seeking out the best tariff, he adds.

“The market is full of smoke and mirrors and there is is lots of trickery, particularly in respect of when people can get in and out of their contracts.

“If you are in an electricity contract for a year and the year is coming to an end, unless you terminate the contract you will automatically get rolled over.

“The new contract might lock you in for 12 months and might not be at prices which are favourable.”

To keep your options open, the Farm Energy Centre recommends terminating an energy contract as soon as you are able – even if you plan on staying with the supplier.

“One of our constant mantras is to make sure your contract is properly terminated,” Mr Kneeshaw says. “It gives the suppler due notice that at the end you have the right to move on.”

Some companies only give very short periods for terminating contracts, which means many farmers can suffer.

“Some companies are very strict and only give a month-long termination window, while the longest is 120 days,” he adds.

“British Gas does not allow customers to terminate until there is 120 days left of the contract, but before 90 says, which means lots of people are left frustrated.

“OFGem is doing work to stop restrictive practices in this area to protect customers as these kinds of contracts are nowhere as highly regulated as domestic tariffs.

“Farmers tend to suffer more than others as they don’t have the resources to look into contracts and they are not as well protected.”

Compare tariffs 

Mr Kneesaw recommends looking at tariff prices two to three months before a contract expires and calculating the costs of different options on offer across a year.

“There are lots of checks and tricks on electricity bills and tariffs in terms if being in the appropriate structure.

“There might be a ‘projected use’ contract which is lower-cost than the tariffs, which can be advantageous dairy, pig and poultry producers, or those storing refrigerated crops.

“Or there are tariffs with specific cheaper rates during certain times of the day or year, so dairy farmers could heat water in the evening, or ventilation might be cheaper to run through the night.”

Once you have found the best price and structure that works for you, it can be worth talking to you existing supplier to see if they can improve their price.

“Sometimes we have people ringing us to check prices and then go back to their existing supplier and saying they have been offered a better price.

“Sometimes that works. You can never say a company will offer you the cheapest price, but you can get within 4% of the best price by having a sniff around.”

Seek advice 

If you don’t feel you have the time of knowledge to look for the best tariff, Mr Kneeshaw recommends seeking advice from an energy advisor, particularly if you are a large energy user.

“For those demanding more than 100kw of energy its usually worth going through a third party to get quotes for supply because policies are done on a bespoke basis, almost like an auction,” he says.

“In addition, with bigger suppliers metering contracts are often supplied by a third party, which usually costs about £200-£400 a year. When that comes up for renewal it’s again worth shopping around.

“Its all buyer beware stuff, even when dealing with brokers,” he adds.

“It’s worth getting them to declare how much they are getting out of the deal. These charges are negotiable too so its worth asking.

“For the big suppliers its not uncommon to pay a broker £350-£500, but you shouldn’t be paying more than that.

“The whole thing is desperately complicated and it gets worse for people who have combined heat and power generation facilities.

“But working out the cost of a tariff over a year and what will be best for your business can make such significant savings that it’s really worth the effort.”

Are you getting the best deal for your energy?

The simplest way of checking is using the NFU’s Farm Energy Service, says Andrew Kneeshaw of the Farm Energy Centre.

“Using information from their electricity bills, small and medium businesses can call and get an idea of the market rates for their profile,” he says.

“It depends on where you are on the country and the amount of energy you are, but it can give you an idea of what prices you could be getting.

“It’s a hidden gem and with it being the NFU there’s no hard sell – you can do it at any stage of your contract.”

People can shop around online, but energy websites can be difficult to find your way around and to know exactly what they are offering, he adds.

“Comparison websites are hard to come by because business tariffs are more complicated.

“It’s often not easy to compare one with the other but you can go to a broker, or come to us and go through the NFU.”

This article first appeared in Farmers Weekly

The post Finding ways to cut farm energy costs appeared first on Caroline Stocks.

Tim Benton, the UK’s Global Food Security Champion, said organic farms usually helped improve biodiversity and delivered other environmental goods locally and nationally.

But he said reduced yields in organic systems meant that land elsewhere had to be cultivated to make up the food shortfall, often at a greater environmental cost.

“If the European Union increased organic farming to 20% of our land area, our production would go down, but our demand for food wouldn’t,” he said during a Farming Futures and AHDB conference on sustainable agriculture on Wednesday (16 January).

“We would need about 10m extra hectares to produce the same level of food, which would mean importing more from other countries.

“This would be from areas like sub-Saharan Africa, where environmental costs would be higher and regulation is less.

“By encouraging organic farming in Europe we are transporting and amplifying the global costs of food production.”

Professor Bennett said that simply encouraging Europe’s farmers to farm in a low-carbon or more sustainable way was not going to help feed the world’s growing population.

“If we reduce yields in one place, somewhere else is going to take the hit as our reduced yields send signals to the market to increase yields elsewhere,” he told delegates.

“If yields are dropped to increase environmental benefits, that might not be sustainable because of the extra land and water needed to regain that yield.

“We can’t look at sustainability in one place.”

The arguments about how farmers should sustainably intensify production still needed to be solved, Prof Benton added, but he warned the industry not to look to technology for the answers.

“Sustainable intensification is a technology-neutral journey,” he said. “It is about producing more and impacting less. It needs landscape planning to allow non-cropped areas to provide things that are valuable to society.

“It’s not about more chemicals or tractors. It’s through using more labour and using using knowledge in a better way.”

Tom MacMillan, innovation director at the Soil Association, agreed addressing knowledge and labour use was an important way to improve productivity.

But he insisted organic farming could contribute to securing sustainable food supplies and in some cases yields could out-perform conventional practices.

A report by the Worldwatch Institute (15 January) said organic farming could improve nutrition intake and sustain livelihoods in rural areas while reducing vulnerability to climate change and enhancing biodiversity, Dr MacMillan said.

“[The report said] well-established organic production can outperform conventional practices – especially in times of drought,” he added.

“While organic yields can be 10-30% lower than high input farming in developed countries, organic approaches can increase yields by up to 100% compared to traditional agriculture in developing countries without the need for expensive inputs.”

The article first appeared on www.fwi.co.uk 

The post Organic farming could ‘do more harm than good’ to global environment appeared first on Caroline Stocks.

Devon farmer Guy Watson, founder of Riverford Organics, said a 25% slump in sales of organic food during the recession meant that fewer farmers were interested in producing organically.

Speaking to the Oxford Real Farming Conference on Friday (4 January), Mr Watson said no new farmers had joined his farming co-operative over the past year, despite it having 70,000 customers and a turnover of £45m.

And the structure of co-operatives meant that many members had become afraid to innovate.

“The glamour has gone out of organic farming post its 2008 peak,” he said. “Young people are coming in and want to run their own box schemes, they don’t develop expertise in just one product.

“Attitude to risk and how to deal with innovation is key to getting co-operatives to work. At Riverford we have not attracted any new members and there is little dynamism. I can see a crisis coming.”

Mr Watson said there was a future for farming co-operatives, but producers needed to learn from other business models and avoid “unnecessary complexities”.

“People [who favour co-operative structures] reject conventional business because they think of big multinationals and corporate bankers,” he added.

“But there are dedicated businesses who just want to do something really well.

“There’s a danger of people interested in co-ops tearing that up. Instead you need to learn from it and do what they do badly better, perhaps in a co-op structure.”

Thinking carefully about succession in co-operatives was also vital, he added.

“I have remortgaged my home three times and struggle to find a way to share the business in a way that reflects that,” he said.

“I could just sell it to a venture capitalist or I could allow it to become an employee-owned business. I haven’t found a model that works for me yet.”

But despite his concerns, Mr Watson insisted there was still a future for the organic sector and for co-operatives.

“The co-op has been fantastic for many years, organic is still growing worldwide and our customers are committed, so we expect to see growth in future.”

This article first appeared in the Press and Journal

The post Organic farming has ‘lost is glamour’ appeared first on Caroline Stocks.

Speaking at the Oxford Farming conference, Mrs McGuiness said farming organisations and research needed to be redirected to make use of research and efforts to improve the environment.

“We need a holistic system of advisory services for farming which incorporates all of the environmental issues of concern,” she said.

Research needed to be translated more effectively at farm level so that producers could make more progress in making changes on their farm and improving the environment.

Mrs McGuiness, Fine Gael MEP for Ireland East, said the wide range of views about the future of the CAP was providing some challenges which needed addressing, particularly around environmental elements of the reform.

“The reasons for 7% ecological focus areas is poorly explained and understood.

“The importance of biodiversity, soil management and climate change measures are acknowledged but there is no agreement on how to integrate these concerns into the policy framework.”

Territorial balance and ensuring the survival of farming in difficult and remote areas was also a key issue, she said.

“A blank one-size-fits-all approach favoured by the European Commission is unacceptable,” she said.

“The territorial aspect of the CAP is perhaps its unique selling point and that desire to keep rural areas attractive as places to live, work and visit is important.

“Pillar 2, rural development policy is regarded as highly significant to ensure territorial balance, but so too are direct payments in Pillar 1.”

Jim McLaren, Quality Meat Scotland chairman, agreed a regional approach was vital, particularly for countries like Scotland where sustaining crop diversity would be difficult.

Mr McLaren said maintaining a strong Pillar 1 was also necessary to help farmers in Scotland thrive.

“It’s early to say what will happen with the CAP, but we will definitely move towards area payments,” he said.

“The historic system is catastrophically out-dated but we have to recognise the diversity of the opportunity in Scotland.

“The proportion of LFA is much higher, so maintaining profitability through support is going to be a reality for many in Scotland for a long while to come.”

The post EU rules must acknowledge diversity of agriculture, says MEP appeared first on Caroline Stocks.

So, given the level of panic speaking in front of people creates in me, my heart went out to poor agribusiness consultant David Bolton, who had one of the biggest cringe-inducing, foot-in-mouth moments when introducing the Princess of Anne at the Young Advocates for Agriculture debating competition last week.

Sadly for David, I was just setting up my camera for when HRH was making her speech and managed to catch the entire thing on (slightly blurry) video.

The look on his face when he realises what he’s said is priceless.

The post How not to get an OBE appeared first on Caroline Stocks.

Is it NayLo twirling behind  the cloakroom desk like a young Paul Daniels, Piglet and Jane Craigie waltzing down Park Lane, or Big Dog David Richardson havin’ a smooch with Christine Tacon?

I know what you’re thinking – how you can choose between such a selection?

Well luckily you don’t have to, because all of those are trumped by 3 minutes 28 seconds in. Oh yes, that is who you think it is.

The Farmers Weekly awards is responsible for some funny old goings on…

The post Farming’s a Journey appeared first on Caroline Stocks.