Back
to SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage
SAC Outlook Conference 2006:
"Making positive choices"
14th November, Murrayfield , Edinburgh
Part 3:
Opportunities for cereals and bioenergy
Keith Dawson, Fergus Tickell, Melvyn Askew &
John Gilliland
Reviewed from the perspective of an upland
suckler herd farmer by
James Irvine
Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie,
Perthshire
Filed 04 Dec06
©www.land-care.org.uk
This section of the conference was taken
up with the opportunities that there are for Scottish farmers to
participate in the bioenergy revolution: be it the growing of oilseed
rape for the manufacture of biodiesel, or of willow or trees for
producing biomass, or be it farming wind turbines.
As far as growing oilseed rape is concerned this
was covered extensively at the Grangemouth workshop previously reported
here (1).
From the perspective of a Scottish uplands farm
there is little opportunity. The yield obtained on such a farm would
be too small, growing being limited to spring sowing of oilseed
rape and the susceptibility of it to disease. But one wonders what
the effect on spring malting barley prices might be, and on the
prices of animal feed. These are important components of the uplands
livestock farmer's returns and costs. They could be very difficult
to predict. Until the economics of the situation become clearer,
the upland livestock farmer may well decide it is better to reduce
his stock to a minimum maintenance level involving minimum costs
(2).
If a hill farmer is thinking of going in for the
production of biomass, then he would need to be close to some unit
that can use it, on account of transport costs that are likely to
be high. One wonders what the environmentalists might say about
Melvyn Askew's suggestion that the Scots could harvest their heather
for biomass purposes. Or indeed how practicable such a suggestion
would be, considering the terrain that heather likes.
Professor Melvyn Askew
Head of Agriculture and Rural Strategy, Central Science Laboratory,
suggests Scotland's heather as a crop for biomass.
Is he serious?
(Photo ©Kimpton Graphics)
It was clear that some planning was going to be
required to get integration between the different farm businesses
relating to the production of bioenergy. That would need to involve
government. But sadly government (either by itself on in conjunction
with the EU) has a poor reputation for behaving in a knowledgeable
and prompt manner. It cannot even get its own existing subsidy schemes
modified to meet changing needs in a sensible and timely fashion
(3).
Upland farmers will already be well aware of the
opportunities for windfarms, if they can get past the hurdle of
planning permission, and the massive and expensive bureaucracy associated
with it.
What may well be advantageous for upland farms
is the development of microsystems at an acceptable cost. These
could provide the farm with its own energy supply - and possibly
feed any spare electricity into the national grid. While it is not
likely to be a great money creator, it could reduce costs substantially:
provided the capital equipment and its maintenance is not too expensive.
Present arrangements - such as provided by Solway
Recycling Co - for collecting waste plastic off farms appear to
be excessively expensive to the farmer. It is all very well saying
"the polluter pays", but if local quality assured food
production is priced out of business then you ain 't going to get
local quality assured food production.
Somehow the hill farmer is got to become a price
maker rather than continuing as a price taker. Up till now he has
generally been at the bottom of the chain with little chance of
being able to determine the price at which he sells his product
or products.
The way ahead for the upland suckler herd farmer
probably remains as before: getting his quality product better recognised
by the consumer. For starters, that must mean that the catering
trade - like the farmers - have to be good at traceability, and
are compelled to do so by law. If you go out for dinner to a restaurant,
the country of origin of any meat served should be clearly displayed.
Does it come from Scotland, England, Wales, Brazil, Argentina, Botswana
or where? And does it comply with the quality standards that are
imposed within this country?
To me, somehow the idea of getting a significant
proportion of our nation's energy supply from crops does not add
up. We are a small country with a substantial population. Is it
not more likely that the feedstock for these new energy enterprises
is going to be imported by the tanker load from much larger countries
with massive hectarage of ground available for such crops. May be
that is why a big crushing plant is planned for Rosyth with its
deep water berthing facility.
What with the mysterious goings on with poisonous
assassins killing off Russian dissidents within the UK using the
deadliest of techniques, perhaps it would be unwise to rely on Russia
to provide our energy supplies, and on others to provide our food
supplies.
Perhaps we should, like
the French and the Fins, get on with building new nuclear energy
stations, and for the farmers to be encouraged to supply the necessary
to regain at least some of our food security. Let's hope so.
©www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. Irvine, James (2006). Biofuels
Workshop: Grangemouth 9th November.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 12 Nov 06,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
2. Irvine, James (2006). SAC Outlook
Conference 2006. "Making positive choices" 14th November,
Edinburgh. Part 2: "Opportunities for livestock businesses".
Sandy Ramsay, Group Manager, SAC Select Services
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 02 Dec 06,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
3. Irvine, James (2006). SAC Outlook
Conference 2006. "Making positive choices" 14th November,
Edinburgh. Part 1: Keynote address - Peter Russell, Head of SEERAD
Rural Group.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 24 Nov 06,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
Finis |
