|
Back to SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL
Homepage
Land Management Contracts analysed:
item 1 - animal health and welfare
James Irvine
Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie,
Perthshire
Filed 03 Mar 05
©www.land-care.org.uk
On Friday 25th February 2005 Ross Finnie, Minister
for Scottish Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD),
announced the launch of the long awaited Land Management Contracts
(LMCs), proclaiming them to be a central part of the Scottish Executive's
commitment to "creating a prosperous and sustainable agricultural
industry that achieves the highest standards of stewardship of the
land" (1).
Oh yes? Well let us just look individually at
the 17 items on offer and then try to answer the question as to
how such a menu came to be concocted.
Item 1: Animal health and welfare management programme
"Measure: A five-year Animal Health and Welfare Management
Programme which will involve farmers taking a proactive approach
on disease standards on the basis of individual veterinary advice
and forward planning. Includes compulsory actions on disease prevention
and control along with possible actions on benchmarking, safe
integration of new stock and other biosecurity measures, disease
testing and assessment of home-grown feed. Maximum payment of
£1135 if all available options are carried out.
Outcome. This will raise standards of animal health and welfare
across Scotland and help achieve strategic objectives whilst at
the same time enhancing the profitability of the livestock sector"
These are fine words, but what do they add up
to? Without a lot more detail as to what is actually involved in
this scheme these words amount to very little.
High standards of animal health and welfare can
only be achieved in the presence of a prosperous farming industry
(2). The reality is that the livestock industry
in Scotland (as in the rest of the UK) is far from prosperous (3).
Average Net Farm Income for all farm types is £19,800 for
2003/4, which is up on the 2002/3 figure of £10,400. However,
average Net Farm Income is forecast to fall to £10,500 in
2004/5 - a reduction of 47% from the previous year.
Figure 1:
(Click Here to open
pdf)
Net Farm income for different types
of farming in Scotland
Source: www.scotland.gov.uk
These findings are broadly confirmed by this year's
survey of farmers' views conducted by Professor Donald MacRae of
Lloyds TSB (4, 5).
It is likely that neither of these barometers of farming economics
took into account realistic personal takings for the work input,
nor any assessment of what an adequate return should be in relation
to the capital invested.
With a reduction in farm subsidies, increases
in costs and little chance of any significant increase in the market
value for farm products, it does not take a rocket scientist to
predict that the financial situation of many farms for next year
- and probably for at least the next few years - is grim. Indeed
the situation is confirmed by the reported increase in farm borrowings.
Even if the full £1135 were payable for
each of the five years (and to date the Scottish Executive has not
clarified this in response to Land-Care's request) it is likely
that the cost of taking up this contract would considerably exceed
such an income, even allowing for savings from improved animal health.
Thus this scheme is likely to add to the financial burden on livestock
farms and therefore may not be widely taken up. What is likely to
happen - probably sooner than later - is that if a farm does not
take up the full scheme it will not be classified as being Farm
Assured, so that in effect it will have difficulty in trading its
products.
The question has to be asked as to whether the
Scottish Executive is trying to pass the responsibility for its
own failures regarding animal health on to individual farmers on
the cheap, while diverting CAP monies to rural policies and ideological
conservation issues that have little to do with agriculture or indeed
the health and welfare of the nation even in the broadest sense.
For example the control of bovine tuberculosis
within the UK can only be described a6 a never ending disaster of
indecision and lack of action, largely blocked by single focus lobby
groups (6). The control of Johnes disease
in cattle, which has possible but unproven implications for human
health, has been seriously neglected; while the prevalence of BVD
and IBR in UK cattle is alarming, with auction markets possibly
being an important venue for disease spread. None of these conditions
can be brought under control without a competent and co-ordinated
strategy that makes economic sense to the individual livestock farmer.
The Scottish Executive along with DEFRA must also
take some responsibility for the serious shortfall in veterinarians
caring for farm livestock (7).
The extortionately high cost of veterinary medicines,
including vaccines, in the UK is also an important factor in determining
whether or not this LMC measure will have a significant number of
takers.
Wearing seriously thin is the endless talk from
the Scottish Executive that building up a high standard of animal
health and welfare (coupled with illogical Quality Assurance standards)
makes any significant difference to the price paid by the public
for the product, when food labelling remains a mystery to most.
The likely outcome of such a LMC measure will
encourage cattle farmers to:
ignore the scheme, or
substantially reduce the size of their herd, or
move down market, or
leave the industry.
This could be especially the case for those who
run suckler herds. It may be easier for those who simply buy in
calves from suckler herds around the country and put them in a shed
or on grazing for a few months before the beasts go to slaughter
to enter the food chain.
Unless the quality of suckler calf production
is maintained, the quality of finished cattle cannot be achieved.
The worry here is that suckler beef herds may go into serious decline
to be replaced by calves from dairy herds produced by crossing dairy
cows with a beef bull. Quality beef producers have spent decades
getting away from such poor genetics, and the reputation of Scotland
as a quality beef producer depends on matters staying that way,
irrespective of the assertions of Quality Meat Scotland.
References
1. Editorial (2005). SEERAD announcement
of Land Management Contracts.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage. filed 01 Mar 05,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
2. Royal Society (2002). Infectious
diseases in livestock.
www.royalsoc.ac.uk
3. Strategic research for SEERAD
2005-2010: environment, biology and agriculture
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/environment/srs10-03.asap
4. Irvine, James (2005). Comments
on "The Lloyds TSB Scotland Scottish agricultural survey 2005"
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage. filed 27 Jan 05,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
5. Macrae, Donald (2005). The
Lloyds TSB Scotland Scottish agricultural survey 2005.
To View full powerpoint presentation Click
Here (pdf) - 261KB allow time to load
6. Editorial (2003). TB in cattle:
Government announces review of badger cullling trial.
See TB Homepage, filed 05 May 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
7. Editorial (2005). BVA and CLA
responses to Government's plans for bovine TB
See TB Homepage, filed 02 Mar 05, www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
|
