Back
to SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage My visit
to the Royal Highland Show 2006
James Irvine
Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie,
Perthshire PH6 2HX
Filed 12 Jul 06
©www.land-care.org.uk
This year my annual visit to the Royal Highland
Show, at Ingliston on the periphery of Edinburgh was on the Friday
of the 4 day event, which runs from Thursday through to Sunday.
The weather was perfect, dry and sunny enough to justify an ice-cream
(or two) or lager.
This year the Show appeared to be particularly
popular with the main central avenues so filled with visitors that
they resembled Oxford Street in London, or Princess Street in Edinburgh
on a Saturday. But my impression was that in other areas, where
farm machinery was on view, the crowds were sparse. It seemed that
for most people it was more like a day out at the shops than an
agricultural show.
The first question that came to mind was to wonder
whether the hoards of people attending realised - or even cared
- what a desperate plight much of Scottish farming was in. This
despite the fact that the beef export market had opened up earlier
in the year after 10 years of closure.
Was there any serious attempt being made to bridge
the gap in mindset between urban and rural? Were there useful messages
for farmers so that they may be able to improve their businesses?
Or was it just a jolly good day out for the family and for those
who could afford large marquees to sell their wares, such as the
supermarkets as they vie with each other to make bigger and bigger
profits at the farmers' expense. And what did the Scottish Executive,
its agencies and the research institutes that it funds, have to
say at the biggest shop window for Scottish farming in the year.
Were they all singing from the same hymn of hype, or was there any
serious attempt to address the problems that face much of Scottish
farming today?
Quality Meat Scotland
An encouraging note was sounded by celebrity chef
Claire Macdonald of Kinloch Hotel, Isle of Skye (1),
enthusing to an attentive audience about the cooking of blackfaced
lamb from the Scottish hills. A book she edited, Scottish Highland
Hospitality, has been warmly reviewed on Land-Care (2).
It was good to see Scottish home produce being promoted by Quality
Meat Scotland in such a professional manner.
Lady Claire Macdonald of Kinloch House, Skye
enthusing about the cooking of blackfaced lamb from the Scottish
hills
at the Royal Highland Show 2006
(to enlarge Click
Here)
Photo©Kimpton Graphics
But the worry is that blackfaced sheep on the
hills of Scotland may not be there much longer, if Common Agricultural
Reform (CAP) as interpreted by the Scottish Executive and the Scottish
Executive's Rural Development Plan have their way - or indeed the
World Trade Talks. There is already a mass exodus of skilled shepherds
from an industry that shows poor returns on the investment needed
to maintain it.
Maybe I missed it, but I did not see any evidence
on the QMS stand that they had anything to say on the Rural Development
Plan, which was open at the time of the Show to public consultation.
It raises the possibility - some say probability - that farm subsidies
will be further reduced by distributing the monies to rural interests
unrelated to farming. Maybe QMS does not see such lobbying as part
of their job. But perhaps it should.
In the QMS Annual Report 2003-2004, the Chairman
says:
"The job of QMS is, of course, to focus
on the prosperity of the industry"
But what is QMS? The bulk of its income comes
from compulsory levy money imposed on farmers on the sale of all
livestock through auction markets. It also makes money from its
controversial quality assurance schemes, with public grants coming
in as a poor third. It is answerable to an extent that i do not
fully understand to the Scottish Minister for Environment and Rural
Affairs (SEERAD).
Its structure has until recently been - and maybe
still is - extraordinary (3),
resulting in legal proceedings over the sacking of its previous
chairman, Jim Walker. Two of the senior players in this fiasco were
previous employees of the Scottish Executive at Pentland House.
Allegedly they did not know if Jim Walker was hired by QMS as an
employee, or as an independent contractor or on a self-employed
basis. Allegedly Jim Walker did not have a contract with QMS. A
run-of-the mill farmer would not get away with that in terms of
who was doing work for him, when it came to presenting his farm
accounts to the relevant inspectors. Employees need contracts and
the status of others who work for a farmer or anyone else needs
to be established. So how come that, among others, previous high
ranking employees of SEERAD allegedly did not get the basics right?
The legal arguments have been presented to an employment tribunal
and the outcome is awaited. Frankly, the situation does not reflect
much credit on any of the parties involved.
Let us hope that, in future, egotistical personalities
- although great for raising profile - are either excluded or controlled,
so that under the glare of media attention further serious damage
to the industry is avoided. Sound and competent administration would
also be helpful, so that farmers' scarce money is not wasted on
lawyers getting even more prosperous.
It would also have been helpful if Ross Finnie,
SEERAD Minister, had been more persuasive in achieving his target,
set a year ago (4), of getting
the country of origin of meat and of meat products clearly indicated
in restaurants and hotels. Considering the enormous effort that
farmers are compelled to make to achieve traceability, perhaps it
is not too much to ask that traceability, merely involving the country
of origin, could be carried through to the catering business. But
that to date has not been achieved, with Ross Finnie giving in to
the restaurateurs who say "it would be too difficult".
So, by and large, caterers serve what they like, and, if asked,
call it what they like. Not surprisingly it is a brave person who
orders a steak in an average British restaurant. The contents of
a hamburger could come from goodness knows where, and so could the
steak. The origins of the meat in a shepherd's pie would be a conundrum
too far.
The State Veterinary Service
Then I called at the modest State Veterinary Service
(SVS) stand, where I asked three mini-stall holders what their message
was for the public and the farmers, at this the biggest shop window
for Scottish farming.
The first turned out to be an employee of Fife
Council who told me her job was to check up on the tagging of cattle.
"There are an awful lot of unidentified
cattle about" she asserted.
"Is that not the task of the British Cattle
Movement Service (BCMS) and of SEERAD (Scottish Executive Environment
and Rural Affairs Department)?" I retorted.
"Yes, but the Council also has legal duties
to do the same" she insisted.
"Is this not duplication of effort?"
I protested.
"Yes, but there's lots of duplication of
effort. You will have to take it up with a higher authority"
was the answer.
Another day perhaps.
One wondered whether all Councils had such employees
duplicating the work of a government department, unnecessarily adding
to Council taxes of the many and to the further frustration of farmers.
The next attendant within this miniscule stand
was a young lady dealing with issues relating to pets. This was
certainly appropriate if the masses of townsfolk could somehow find
their way to the stall and away from the shops.
But then it came to asking what message the SVS
had for livestock farmers. According to the member of staff to whom
my question was referred, Scottish cattle are in good health.
"Well, not exactly", I said. "What
about the UK having among the worst records in Europe for Johnes
disease, IBR, BVD etc, quite apart from the ongoing disgraceful
situation in parts of England regarding bovine tuberculosis. With
IBR being so common and largely uncontrolled in Scotland, is not
the Highland Hall at the Show where the cattle are housed an ideal
venue for spreading this infectious viral disease?", I asked
"You couldn't close the showing of cattle
at the Show", was the answer.
"No, but where were the control strategies
over all those years, the lack of which has led to the present
unsatisfactory state? What about cattle health schemes?",
I asked.
"They are gone. The last one was to do
with EBL", he said.
EBL was eradicated from the UK some years ago,
but according to this SVS member of staff no other cattle health
schemes have been brought in to try and control these other diseases
on a national level. How then did other European countries manage
to do it, I wondered. It seemed not to be a concern of the SVS.
But of course there are now a number of cattle health schemes organised
by other bodies - such is the apparent fragmentation of the control
of cattle health in this country: SVS, SEERAD, SAC and private companies.
The SVS is more interested in diseases such as
Foot and Mouth (FMD). When challenged that perhaps the level of
preparedness for the next outbreak was much the same as in 2001
with its disastrous consequences, I was reassured that contingency
planning was in place and field exercises had been carried out.
As for any increased surveillance, he admitted that Scotland had
no sniffer dogs at any of its ports, either sea or air. Vast quantities
of illegal meat and meat products continue to be imported.
My attempt to raise any enthusiasm about the key
importance of rapid diagnostic tests which would facilitate the
early use of vaccination as a front line measure (as recommended
by EU Directive) drew a blank. As far as this SVS officer was concerned
it did not seem to have much priority. It would be a lot of slaughter
all over again, was the impression I gained. And of course the Executive
now have a revised Animal Welfare (Scotland) Act to help them enforce
it.
To ask if he was aware of the work of Roger Breeze
(5), an expatriate who graduated
from Glasgow University and who held the post of director of the
US Department of Agriculture at Plum Island, might have been met
with an embarrassing no. I decided not to risk it. After all he
might appear on my farm armed with a set of directives and regulations
that make little scientific sense, but which he might feel inclined
to enforce a touch over-enthusiastically.
So, in summary, we have duplication of effort
at detecting any cattle (and in the future sheep) that may have
lost their eartags, and damn all effort at achieving early and reliable
diagnosis when FMD strikes again - as it surely will.
But what did other organisations have to say about
the management of a future outbreak of FMD or other infectious viral
disease, such as Avian Influenza?
NFU Scotland
The Show provides an opportunity for farmers -
and indeed for anyone - to talk to NFUS officials. I raised the
following matters with Scott Walker, Director of Policy, NFUS.
Has the NFUS changed its stance since FMD 2001/2
regarding vaccination as a front- line weapon in the control of
Foot and Mouth disease, when it strikes again as it surely will?
Is NFUS pressing for the use of tests using
modern technology to provide early and local diagnosis?
His answer was depressing.
"We have had this conversation before.
We are not scientists. We have to think of the export market"
Perhaps that answer may have been understandable
in 2001, but not now.
My next question was:
What is NFUS achieving with regard to the draconian
financial penalties imposed on farmers who made an honest mistake
about forgetting to notify SEERAD about replacing heifers, when
heifers submitted on the suckler cow premium application some
2 years ago had calved within the stipulated period? This when
SEERAD had access to foolproof evidence from the British Cattle
Movement Service (BCMS) that there were a sufficient number of
heifers on the farm to meet such requirements, and that there
was no fraud. The financial penalties amount to an annually recurring
fine (in terms of deduction form the Single Farm Payment) every
year until such time as farm subsidies are withdrawn. Amounting
in some cases to many thousands of pounds sterling, it is a highly
unjust and iniquitous situation.
Scott Walker told me that NFUS had been unsuccessful
on this subject when it raised it with SEERAD and with the European
Commissioner. I understood him to say that the NFUS may be considering
taking the matter to the European Court.
The imposition of such a punitive scheme,
that apparently has no precedent in law, reflects very badly on
the sincerity of the government authorities, be they Scottish or
European, in terms of their commitment to sustainable agriculture,
rather than to its demise in favour of 'conservation' and 'other
rural issues'. Were the government in France to try to impose such
draconian penalties on its farmers a strike would be the likely
result.
Where the NFUS has been successful is in
persuading SEERAD not to incur penalties - which I daresay were
also calculated to recur every year - on a farmer's Single Farm
Payment, if cattle were found missing a tag or two. In real life
- rather than in the minds of the office bureaucrat - cattle lose
their tags for all sorts of reasons that are beyond the control
of the farmer. At least this punitive stance by SEERAD has now been
stopped and the farmer given a chance to replace any missing tags
within a reasonable time.
Scottish Agricultural College (SAC)
On visiting the substantial stand of SAC, I got
reminded yet again that the S in SAC stands for Scottish and not
for Science. Perhaps at the SAC stand i might have got a better
reception to my question as to what SAC's message might be concerning
the control of such diseases as FMD and Avian Influenza. Sadly,
that was not the case. The SAC seemed to be in the same groove as
the SVS as described above.
To a background of an enormous poster displaying
a group of beautiful swans and text about Avian Influenza, I asked
essentially the same question as I did at the SVS stand regarding
FMD, but reminding SAC that it took the authorities a week to confirm
the strain of the Avian Influenza virus that infected the swan found
at Cellardyke in Fife, Scotland earlier this year (6)
What was the SAC's view about the importance
of early diagnosis of Avian Influenza and what action were they
currently recommending to Government?
The answer from the virology expert attending
the stand was essentially a blank. He complained of a lack of resources,
but I would doubt if that is in fact the main problem. There did
not seem to be any great enthusiasm for challenging the present
status quo whereby all samples go to Pirbright and/or Weybridge
in the south of England. Nor did there seem to be any enthusiasm
to challenge the current technology that is used, resorting to quoting
this regulation and that, but not showing a primary interest in
the application of the modern technology that science has made possible.
Even spelling out the obvious advantages of early diagnosis, including
identification of the specific strain involved, did not raise any
spark of scientific drive.
Likewise the reminder that Scotland has a new
diagnostic laboratory at Dumfries, that could be used for rapid
testing using RT-PCR technology that does not need tight biosecurity,
did not result in any response - other than to say that my comments
would be passed on to the higher authorities.
Does central government now have such a hold on
the research that it funds that no scientist dare speak his or her
mind? Or is it that the quality of science currently pursued in
government funded institutes has now sunk to a new and demoralised
low?
In summary, between SVS, NFUS and SAC there was
a thoroughly depressing lack of initiative to use the opportunities
that are currently available to modernise the control of such important
diseases of livestock as FMD and Avian Influenza. It would seem
that we in Scotland, with our reputation for excellent science and
excellent livestock, will have to look to other countries for the
answer.
Macauley Land Use Research Institute (MLURI)
The SAC stand also housed an unmanned display
by the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute (MLURI) consisting of
a scarcely legible video loop ironically proclaiming the importance
of 'sustainable' agriculture. It would be fair to say that the MLURI
has been to the fore in recommending to government alternative uses
of farm land which makes farming in Scotland unsustainable (7).
Surprise, surprise again: the previous head of MLURI is now Scotland's
Chief Scientist.
The Scottish Farmer
The magazine, The Scottish Farmer, has done some
splendid ventures - such as sponsoring the Scottish Countryside
Alliance in relation to its latest annual conference, "Who
should run the countryside? Rural Scotland 2006", and the coverage
it gave to it (8).
But it is difficult to condone the balance of
its reporting with regard to the group that broke away from the
Scottish Region of the National Beef Association (NBA), led by John
Cameron and others without consulting the members who they were
supposed to representing (9).
Surprise, surprise: the chairman of the panel
set up by the Scottish Farmer to give awards to those in the farming
world who have contributed most in the past year was the same John
Cameron. Among the top award winners was Ian Anderson of SEERAD
for his contribution to the health of livestock. In view of what
has been described above and elsewhere (10),
one has to wonder how this came about.
National Beef Assocation (NBA) Scottish Region
The Scottish Region of the NBA had a stand at
the Show. With the somewhat self-seeking "rebels" having
taken themselves off after causing largely unjustifiable mayhem
within the Association for the past year (11),
a much more effective committee has been formed which focuses on
the many issues that face Scottish beef farmers, rather than on
internal disputes generated by power seekers. The interim arrangements
will hold until the agm is held later this year, when the office
bearers and members of the committee will be up for election by
the Scottish membership. At present there is good representation
from many parts of Scotland and with a commendably young average
age. The interim chairman is Iain Mathers of Wardes, Kintore (11).
Opportunities were taken at the Show for representations
on behalf of beef producers to be made by the NBA to the supermarkets
and to the many Breed Societies attending the Show.
The main issue with the supermarkets is of course
the price they are willing to pay Scottish beef producers for their
product, which is often less than the cost of production.
The issue with the Breed Societies is that it
is all very well winning prizes for individual beasts in the show
ring, but the main market for their members is the commercial market.
If commercial farmers cannot afford to buy their bulls, or their
pedigree females, then there will not be much of an outlet for the
majority of the progeny produced by the different breeds.
To deal effectively with both of these issues
requires an organisation that talks directly to SEERAD, DEFRA and
the EC. That is what the NBA can do. It has been shown to be the
most effective organisation in this regard. Through the Scottish
Region of the NBA Scottish beef producers can have direct access
to SEERAD and also have an input into negotiations with DEFRA and
the EU through good representation on the Board of the NBA and its
various committees.
But I had a nice lunch courtesy of my firm's rather expensive
solicitors
The Show as far as farmers are concerned is supposed
to be about getting up to date with information relevant to their
business and also socialising. For me, my rather expensive (aren't
they all) but friendly solicitors provided a particularly convivial
venue in the form of a buffet lunch.
There I caught up with Brian Kaye, farm manager
at Culfargie Estate. When Land-Care previously attended a LEAF open
day at Culfargie, half of the farm was managed according to LEAF
principles and the other half according to Organic principles. He
told me that the estate was going to go wholly organic.
This surprised me a little as I felt that there
must be something wrong with Scottish farming as a whole when what
was a superb cereal farm at Culfargie is now apparently reduced
to chasing subsidy money for projects that have been shown not to
add any established nutritional value to the final product. It seems
that neither the Westminster or the Holyrood Government have much
concern over food security for the UK, nor indeed for following
their own dictum that progress must be science based.
Brian has been reappointed to DEFRA's Advisory
Committee on Organic Standards - an area not without controversy
(12).
But what Brian had the kindness to say was that
when a relative of his wanted to know what the internet had to say
about Culfargie Estate, Land-Care appeared at the top of Google's
list - at least at the time. Such a compliment makes up for a lot
of disagreements about farming policies.
Conclusion
What is very difficult to get across to the masses
of people attending the Royal Highland Show - or indeed any show
- is that there is very little wrong with conventional farming in
Scotland. Unless it is supported, then the so-called 'conservationists'
can cry to the wind for all their fancy schemes - there will be
too few people with the requisite skills to look after the countryside.
For all the trumped up criticisms put forward by the 'conservationists',
to date the Scottish countryside has been pretty well looked after
by Scotland's farmers.
It remains my belief that the 'conservationists'
are doing Scotland's countryside more harm than good, and that the
spark of inventiveness has been largely extinguished by government
interference with what the scientists they fund can do, or even
say.
The government's priorities for the countryside
are seriously unbalanced (13).
How a more logical and pragmatic balance can be achieved should
now be the main objective. With the opening up of the export market
it is essential that the fundamentals needed for quality livestock
production in Scotland are in place. From my visit to the Royal
Highland Show 2006 it would appear that there is much to be done
before that can be achieved.
©www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. http://www.claire-macdonald.com
2. Book Review: Scottish Highland
Hospitality by Claire Macdonald. Click
Here to View
3. Irvine, James (2005). The precipitous
dismissal of QMS chairman.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 21 Oct 05,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
4. Davidson, Gordon(2005). Ross
Finnie moves on labelling.
Scottish Farmer, 19 Nov 05 Vol 113, no 8729.
5. Breeze, Roger (2006).
Further comments on diagnostic testing for Avian Flu and other diseases
of livestock.
See ANIMAL HEALTH - GENERAL Homepage, filed 12 Apr 06,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
6. Linklater, Magnus (2006). DEFRA
is like a dead swan. Discuss.
The TImes, 12th April 2006. Reproduced with kind permission of the
author and newspaper
See ANIMAL HEALTH - GENERAL Homepage, filed 12 Apr 06,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
7. Irvine, James (2004). Is MLURI
now going to tell us what kind of livestock we should have on our
farms?
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 12 Sep 04,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
8. Andrews, Tony (2006).
Concluding remarks.
Paper presented at SCA annual conference "Who should run the
countryside? Rural Scotland 2006". Royal Highland Centre, Ingliston,
Edinburgh 25 Apirl 06
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 04 Jun 06,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
9. Irvine, James (2006). My resignation
from the committee of the Scottish Beef Council.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 08 Apr 06,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
10. Irvine, James (2005).
The unhealthy relationship beetween the Scottish Executive, the
Soil Association, the Scottish Agricultural College, the lobby group
Enviornment LINK, and the media needs to be addressed.
A review of the conference presented by the Soil Association, Scottish
Agricultural College and Scottish Natural Heritage 'Farming, food
and health: an indivisible chain' Battleby, Perth 25th May 2005.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 21 Jun 05,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
10. Gillanders, Edwin (2006).
Opportunities for the Scottish Beef Council: but let's stop the
squabbling.
Farm North East, No 15, June 2006.
Reproduced with the kind permision of the author and the journal
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 09 Jun 06,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
11. Irvine, James (2006). Iain
Mathers elected as new interim chairman of the Scottish Beef Council:
the old lot sacked.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 25 May 06,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
12. Ruth Watkins (2005). Proposals
for a new organic status for hill farmers and conservation farmers:
organic 'B' introduction and problems with the organic rules.
See ENVIRONMENT Homepage, filed 19 Jan 05, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
13. Linklater, Magnus (2006).
Could we be on the verge of losing another British industry?
Scotland on Sunday, Spectrum magazine, 19th March 2006.
Reproduced on Lnad-Care with the kind permission of the author and
the newspaper
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 21 Mar 06,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
Finis
|
