Test

My 10 hopes for the next generation

At the end of March we welcomed a new young farmer to the team – baby George. I’ve had all the jokes about “keeping in the block” as he managed to arrive at our busiest time of the year, just past the peak of calving season.

I was in the milking parlour the day before he was born, and helping to feed calves the day we came home. I’ve been pleasantly surprised how well the baby has fitted into farm life. He has already attended discussion groups, AHDB events and markets.

I’ve also discovered that the rhythmic sound of the vacuum pump is a highly effective way to send him to sleep, or failing that, a bumpy ride in the tractor does the trick. I’m also getting more sleep than ever before, now I’m not getting up at 4.30am for milking.

Becoming parents at a time when things are looking pretty gloomy in our sector has given us renewed cause to think about the future. If, in 20 years or so, George decides to go into farming, what opportunities and challenges will he face?

I thought I’d share with you some of my hopes.

1. The UK will retain its world-class reputation for producing the highest-quality food. We will be trading with a wider range of international markets, selling more added-value products and farmers will get better returns.

2. Supermarkets will no longer sell commodities like milk at knockdown prices in a bid to win footfall. The price charged at the till will reflect the true value of the product and a fair margin will be passed back to the producer.

3. The public will have a stronger connection with farmers and “farm to fork” eating will be the norm. British food self-sufficiency will be back up to nearly 90% as it was in the 1990s and agriculture will be on the secondary school curriculum.

4. The Basic Payment Scheme and other subsidies will have been abolished, creating a level playing field and forcing all farms to become sustainable, profitable businesses in their own right.

5. The amount of red tape afflicting farmers will have been drastically reduced. We will no longer be professional form fillers and will have the freedom to get on with the job we love.

6. There will be more established pathways into farming for new entrants. As traditional tenancies phase out, they will be replaced with a range of options including joint ventures, contract farming and share farming type agreements, making the industry more accessible to a wider range of people.

7. The blight of bovine TB will have been eradicated thanks to a strategic culling plan, coupled with rigorous, yet practical, testing rules.

8. Farmers will no longer be among the professions most likely to commit suicide. The stigma surrounding mental health will have reduced, more people will talk and more NHS help will be available for those who need support.

9. The UK will still be a world leader in agricultural technology, driving increased efficiencies and productivity. We will get more time off, if robots haven’t replaced us completely.

10. Young Farmers Clubs will still be thriving, and George will get to experience the Blackpool AGM. I may live to regret this one… Of course, he might decide not to go into agriculture at all, and that will be fine. But all of the goals above are achievable, many in the near future. There is plenty to be optimistic about, and I think farming can offer a rewarding and profitable pathway for the next generation.

Liz Haines and her husband Nick milk 320 spring-calving cows in a contract farming arrangement in north Shropshire

⁕ Liz Haines is on Twitter at @lizhaines6 and you can reach Farmers Weekly at @farmersweekly

⁕ Concern about the UK’s low soil organic matter levels was raised much longer ago than the 25 years Antony Carter (Letters, 20 May) suggests.

The 1970 report, Modern Farming and the Soil, from the Agricultural Advisory Council (widely known as the Strutt Report), noted that “practices to maintain the organic matter level in the soil, such as applications of farmyard manure, other bulky organics, green manuring and the growing of grass and clover leys, have declined and disappeared from large sections of farming”.

Andrew Blake Marlborough, Wiltshire

⁕ The RPA’s dedication to getting its computer system in shape to handle this years’ BPS applications can only be applauded. The new system appears to have worked well and seems to have done the basics. The new four-digit area measurements allow fantastic degrees of accuracy – as I discovered this morning on receiving a letter from the RPA to inform me that my calculations on one of the few paper applications I made contained an error.

Apparently there was an area for which I had not submitted a land use code. An area that amounted to 0.0001ha. That’s right, one square metre of land was not coded properly.

If only we could expect them to be quite so accurate when making payments on time.

I am tempted to send them a high-resolution photograph of the area in question so they can count the blades of grass, just to make sure.

Edward Dixon Simmons & Sons, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire

⁕ I had to write after reading the articles about the effect of dog attacks on sheep in the past few months (in particular, News, 29 April).

My partner and I farm sheep and cattle in the Monaro district of New South Wales, but we read Farmers Weekly each week as we find the information, markets and global features of tremendous help. Your publication gives us a “sticky beak” into how other farmers run their operations and what challenges they have to cope with. It is interesting to compare commodity prices and the seemingly staggering price of your land (perhaps someone can explain how the maths adds up?).

One of the major challenges we have had to manage – aside from the weather and our slide into a very dry period – is the horror and despair that dog attacks have caused us and many of our neighbours since 1975.

The dogs are predominantly “wild dogs” or dingoes that come out of the neighbouring National Park and decimate any flock in their sights. So this is different from the UK experience with unmanaged domestic dogs, but just as heartbreaking for the stock owners.

As landowners with a 12km boundary with the National Park, it is a daily worry that somewhere on our property we may have sheep that have been attacked and left to die with horrific wounds and gaping holes in their flanks.

This problem has multiple effects on farmers. The animal welfare issue is foremost. I am haunted by the sight, early one winter morning, of a young weaner sheep (less than a year old) standing away from the mob on a hill with a huge, bloody hole in his side and up to his neck. It was a forlorn and stark reminder that dogs are indiscriminate killers – once they have killed sheep they will keep on killing sheep.

The financial impact is, of course, an issue, but that isn’t what keeps us awake at night. We have spent nights out in the paddocks trying to watch over our sheep, but the size of the area we have means it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Although it is important to note that tens of thousands of sheep are killed each year across Australia by wild dogs, they have also battered the native fauna, as well as killing many calves over the years in the north of Australia. It is a national endemic problem that no one has managed to stem.

The other effect of note is the relationship we have with the neighbour that allows the breeding of these dogs. The Kosciuszko National Park is a state-owned venture that over many years has seemingly failed to understand how the wild dogs affect stockowners.

As a consequence, farmers adjoining the park have stopped running sheep over the years as nobody can watch the animals they have bred die night after night.

Anxiety, stress, anger and many other mental health issues affect all of us that have stock. We have such a responsibility to keep them healthy, safe and well nourished. It is a tremendous privilege and brings at times laughter and joy at the antics of our animals. Although the trauma of dog attacks makes it easy for me to understand why farmers move out of sheep, it is an issue that makes even the tough old bush farmers shed a tear. So we understand what your farmers are going through and wish them all the best.

Bill Brewis and Sarah Woodhouse New South Wales, Australia

⁕ It is tempting to put the issue of the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) to one side now the 16 May deadline has passed in England.

However, given the number of BPS headlines generated over the past three months, it seems sensible to reflect on the successes and failures of the 2016 scheme year in a bid to give some constructive feedback to the Rural Payment Agency (RPA).

It is difficult to discuss BPS without acknowledging the effects of payment delays relating to 2015 claims, which have caused widespread cashflow problems and distress.

Many farmers have also suffered from what look to be serious underpayments, which still need to be resolved.

But against a backdrop of frustration over why problems have arisen, we acknowledge that there were some improvements to the application process this year.

The transfer of entitlements and land was a much simpler process than before and considerably better than with the previous paper-based system.

Indeed, overall the online system was functional, the greening checker helpful and claims were easy to amend and resubmit if this proved necessary.

This meant for claims that were fairly straightforward, and where everything had been processed correctly from 2015, this year was a relatively easy one.

On the downside, it felt like a backwards step that maps could only be printed out at an individual parcel level. It was frustrating that some land and entitlements had dropped off the system, some land was incorrectly identified and some mapping changes were being carried out even as the forms were being filled in (a hangover from the backlog of 2015 RLE1 forms). The mapping and coding of permanent ineligible features (PIFs) also seemed unnecessarily complicated.

The biggest challenge was those instances where the RPA had introduced errors, for a variety of reasons, which did take a long time to untangle and correct. This is despite the benefit, as agents, of access to a dedicated team at the RPA and the experience filling out multiple claims brings.

If the RPA is to meet its target of paying 90% of farmers in December 2016, it is clear they will need to ensure all discrepancies in land parcels, entitlements and eligible areas are ironed out over the summer period.

The deadline may have passed for farmers, but it looks as if the hard work is just beginning for the RPA.

George Chichester National partner, Strutt & Parker

⁕ I wonder if your readers can help me. I am restoring a 1950 Nipper Truck milk float, designed and manufactured in Hull.

I am too young (only just) to remember these and it appears this is the last-known survivor. The registration number I believe is a West Sussex one.

I would love to know more and if anyone remembers them. They are only 2m long and are driven from a footplate at the rear. They have no lights fitted, so must have just been for “local” use – perhaps by a dairy farmer. They could travel 8mph flat out from the single-cylinder 500cc motor.

One of your readers may even recognise this machine, named “Billy”. I hope so. I have purchased some 1950s galvanised milk crates, but I am desperate for some old milk bottles. I managed to buy 80 out of an old barn and hope there are other people around who can assist. The float holds 18 crates, so you can imagine I need as many as I can get my hands on.

I live in the East Riding of York-shire, am am on 07932 769 214.

Jonathan Smith

⁕ Sitting on the fence about the referendum is not a sign of weakness or indecision. It comes from not having enough information that can be trusted – there are still some important pieces missing from both sides.

This is a debate about the future, not about past or present battles. Both sides have to explain their vision for the future of the UK, in or out of the EU, and how they are going to achieve it. Only then can we judge whether we want to be part of it or not. It is easy to be swayed by the emotions of the headlines, but the story is often very different when you look at the details.

We need to hear what “Remain” will do with the CAP, and how it will control the European Commission and the European Court of Justice.

Brexit needs to commit to some level of subsidies and not spend them all on new hospitals, to allow temporary labour, as well as agreeing on which pieces of red tape it will have to keep.

Neither side can deliver everything they promise, either, because we have such a small minority of the votes in the EU institutions or because the negotiations with 27 countries will be too difficult.

But where does Remain draw its “red line” in the sand to protect our interests? And how will Brexit get us out of the EU without hurting the economy?

This is why we launched our own unbiased website at www.euandyou.com.

However, if you want to hear what the parties say about the future then we must get away from this music hall of custard pies, bad jokes and economic magic tricks that they try to call a campaign.

Nicholas Craig-Harvey Winchester, Hampshire