Zero Grazing- Grass is brought from the field to the "housed" milking cows

instead of the cows grazing in the field.

 

Grassland Management:

From studies carried out zero grazing can increase grass production by 30%.

 All grassland on the farm is available to the dairy stock, regardless of the distance or use of public road.

Grazing season can be extended at both the beginning and end of the year.

Poaching and cow fouling are eliminated while grazing and topping is all done in one.

As all land is available, nitrogen usage is decreased and a better use of slurry on the farm all help to reduce costs.

The value of this can't be under estimated, where fertilizer usage has been reduced by 75% on some farms. Cutting date is usually 20 - 23 days in good growing conditions.

Providing the correct grass to animals will have a positive impact on milk yield, milk solids and grassland management.

A general rule is to follow the quality grass and take out surplus in silage.

Nearly unaware to farmers using a Zero Grazer®, by using this simple rule they become better grassland managers.

Feed Management:

When cows have access to unlimited grass, intake is greatly increased.

Their maximum amount of grass is consumed in a shorter space of time; energy is saved walking around grazing, while more time is used producing milk.

Increased usage of grass in the cow's total diet has helped reduce silage requirements.

On the continent some herds are housed full time and never let out.

This practice would have certain advantages for some dairy farmers but most Irish dairy farms would not see this as the main reason to purchase the Zero Grazer®.

In most situations cows are only housed at night (slatted shed), with grazing during the day, on land beside the parlour.

 In other cases cows continue to graze full time with zero grazed grass being fed when grass is tight on the grazing block.

While others use the machine early in the year and late in the year, in between cows graze as normal.

It's the flexibility the Zero Grazer® offers, that makes it so appealing to the dairy farmer

The Archers tackles super dairies

4 February 2012 | By Olivia Midgley

Farmers Guardian

'Starter farms' to attract the next generation

30 January 2012

Farmers Guardian

Call goes out for Open Farm Sunday

29 January 2012 | By Ben Briggs

Farmers Guardian

THE call has gone out for farmers to get involved with the annual Open Farm Sunday.

FARMERS interested in getting involved in this year’s event on June 17 are being are urged to attend free information events being held across the UK in February.

Organisers of the national farming open day, LEAF (Linking Environment And Farming) is encouraging more farmers than ever before to open their gates to the public to tell them what they do to produce great food and look after the countryside.

The evening events will inspire and enthuse host farmers with new ideas on how to put on a great event, equip them with the latest health and safety information as well as share ideas and experiences with other host farmers.

LEAF’s Open Farm Sunday manager, Annabel Shackleton said: “Farmers are already registering to get involved in this year’s Open Farm Sunday. 

“These events will be a fantastic way for host farmers – both old and new – to get together in a fun and informal way. 

“We’ll be looking at publicity, promotion, activities and social media. We’re also planning some entertaining activities to get farmers thinking so they go away full of inspiration and buzzing with new ideas.”

A total of 12 events are being held in February, across the UK. 

They will run from 7pm to 9pm, with refreshments. 

For dates, venues and booking details of all the events visit www.farmsunday.org

UK Agriculture

Farming Statistics

Export / Import
                                                   1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Meat exports
(£ million nominal prices)    649.2 627.1 418.7 513.8 603.9 667.0 727.6 758.9 834.4 1161.2 1234.9

Meat imports
(£ million nominal prices)    2194.9 2406.7 2775.9 2891.8 3365.7 3540.2 3721.8 3924.0 4083.7 4667.6 4974.3

Balance of trade meat
(£ million nominal prices)    -1545.7 -1779.6 -2357.2 -2378.0 -2761.8 -2873.2 -2994.2 -3165.1 -3249.3 -3506.4 -3739.4

Dairy exports
(£ million nominal prices)    686.8 654.5 612.2 619.3 760.5 782.2 720.4 787.8 807.6 872.4 836.6

Dairy imports
(£ million nominal prices)    1187.4 1189.6 1279.1 1324.6 1538.4 1652.7 1746.8 2019.2 1872.5 2290.3 2348.2

Balance of trade dairy
(£ million nominal prices)    -500.6 -535.1 -666.9 -705.3 -777.9 -870.5 -1026.4 -1135.7 -1064.9 -1425.2 -1511.6

Fish exports
(£ million nominal prices)    747.2 698.5 745.6 762.3 891.4 885.8 939.5 1023.7 982.2 1004.4 1166.2

Fish imports
(£ million nominal prices)    1302.7 1338.3 1449.9 1438.8 1439.0 1474.2 1696.4 2084.1 1994.5 2290.3 2177.5

Balance of trade fish
(£ million nominal prices)    -555.5 -639.8 -704.3 -676.5 -547.6 -588.4 -756.9 -978.0 -1012.3 -1285.9 -1011.3

Cereal exports
(£ million nominal prices)    1209.2 1261.4 1085.0 1135.5 1344.4 1240.7 1240.2 1341.4 1357.5 1745.1 1773.6

Cereal imports
(£ million nominal prices)    1134.7 1098.1 1247.6 1310.2 1391.0 1459.5 1511.1 1689.0 1920.4 2453.4 2467.4

Balance of trade cereals
(£ million nominal prices)    74.5 163.3 -162.6 -174.7 -46.5 -218.8 -270.9 -320.6 -562.9 -708.3 -693.8

Fruit and vet export
(£ million nominal prices)    432.5 394.0 394.8 432.2 472.6 508.0 515.0 631.9 599.5 686.3 757.8

Fruit and vet import
(£ million nominal prices)    4133.4 3980.2 4221.1 4528.0 4930.9 5099.9 5643.7 6479.1 6370.3 7165.4 7209.8

Balance of trade fruit and vet
(£ million nominal prices)    -3700.9 -3586.2 -3826.3 -4095.8 -4458.3 -4591.9 -5128.7 -5392.6 -5770.8 -6479.1 -6452

Sugar exports
(£ million nominal prices)    375.6 360.6 357.1 325.7 342.4 375.0 340.9 405.9 390.5 441.7 452.1

Sugar imports
(£ million nominal prices)    741.2 712.0 788.0 792.3 858.4 897.7 958.9 1050.9 972.0 1159.2 1202.4

Balance of trade sugar
(£ million nominal prices)    -365.6 -351.4 -430.9 -466.6 -516.0 -522.7 -618.0 -594.8 -581.5 -717.5 -750.3

Animal feed exports
(£ million nominal prices)    337.2 324.0 291.5 311.1 330.5 315.2 315.1 394.3 426.6 524.3 584.7

Animal feed imports
(£ million nominal prices)    649.6 704.7 788.1 757.4 902.7 927.7 928.4 1100.6 1072.6 1422.2 1549.4

Balance of trade animal feed
(£ million nominal prices)    -312.4 -380.7 -496.6 -446.3 -572.2 -612.5 -613.3 -651.3 -646 -897.9 -964.7

Exports all foods
(£ million nominal prices)    8879.8 8702.3 8505.7 8915.2 9881.4 9701.9 9941.8 11390.3 11379.3 13171.0 14029.9

Imports all foods
(£ million nominal prices)    17213.8 16828.5 18267.1 19090.6 20943.8 21941.5 23428.7 26928.5 26569.2 31485.8 32515.8

Balance of trade all foods
(£ million nominal prices)    -8334.0 -8126.2 -9761.4 -10175.4 -11062.4 -12239.6 -13486.9 -14330.2 -15189.9 -18314.8 -18485.9

The amount we spend ANNUALLY on the balance of payments deficit to feed ourselves is £18,485,900,000

Farming in harmony with the downland environment

19 January 2012

Farmers Guardian

The rough grass areas and challenges of a downland farm have never deterred Chris Passmore from building a mixed farming system that plays to its strengths.

Jonathan Long finds out more.

 

Sustainability may be the buzzword of the last decade, but it’s something Chris Passmore has always strived to achieve in his mixed farming system.

Chris, who farms 344ha (850 acres) on the South Downs at Lancing, maintains his integrated farming system is simply doing what is best for the land he manages, the crops he grows and the stock he rears.

With a keen eye for the environment, the farming system at Applesham Farm, Coombes, has been tailored to make the most of the land, while also putting something back into it.

“We’re a downland farm and have to respect the soils we work with,” says Chris, who farms with his nephew Hugh.

“Most of our ground is shallow soils overlying chalk and it’s dry.

“We can’t just go stripping everything out of it and not putting anything back.”
Stocking includes a 70-cow Limousin-based suckler herd and a 350-ewe Lleyn and Texel cross flock.

Both livestock enterprises help maximise soil fertility, with organic matter used to aid the arable crops grown.

Two-thirds of the farm is in a seven-year rotation, with the remaining third - alluvial brookland (fertile soil) by the river Adur - in a permanent arable rotation.

The rotation on the main block comprises a three-year grass and clover ley, followed by two wheat crops and two years of spring barley. The second spring barley crop is undersown with a grass clover ley again.

To help build organic matter in the soils, a break crop of stubble turnips is grown between the second wheat and first spring barley crop, and a crop of mustard is sown between the two spring barleys.

“By doing this, we’re building fertility and reducing our reliance on artificial fertilisers, but we’re also putting organic matter back into the soils and providing winter feed for the sheep flock,” says Chris.

“This gives the grass a break over winter and helps reduce the worm burden on the grassland.”

That said, not all the grass is rested as the suckler herd spends the winter grazing leys adjacent to unimproved grassland banks, which are eaten down through the autumn and winter.

“These banks, about 70 acres in total, are uncroppable, unimproved chalk grassland, which are part of a higher level stewardship agreement and are largely bordered by blocks of arable reversion ground, which are quickly coming into their own too.

“Where these areas border arable fields, they are grazed in early autumn once the arable crops have been combined, when the cows are let on to clear up the stubbles.

“These rough grass areas are ideal for cow grazing later in the year and this suits their management too as it means we can eat them down tight and then let them regenerate through the summer and the wild flowers have a chance to bloom too.”

Bloodlines

While Chris believes in working with the natural environment, he is adamant what the public and politicians have to understand is that the South Downs people know and love looks the way it does because it is farmed.

“We’ve proved this by leaving a patch of chalk bank to regenerate naturally without grazing.

Within 10 years it was thick scrub and over time it’s reverted to scrubby woodland - nothing like most of the South Downs is today.”

When it comes to breeding, the aim is to keep both the cattle and sheep enterprises self-contained - apart from the purchase of new sires.

“I try to breed stock to suit the farm and have found breeding our own replacements suits the system far better,” says Chris.

“Our ground isn’t suited to big heavy cows, so we aim to breed a relatively compact, fleshy cow capable of milking well through our dryer summers and then rebuilding condition through autumn and winter before calving again the following spring.

“What we want to see is a cow with a decent bag of milk on her all summer to do the calf well.

“While we used to buy in Hereford cross Friesians and Sussex cross Friesians, we’ve found our type of pure Limousin cow is best suited to the system.”

The cows, says Chris, are designed to be forage converters, with very little concentrate fed to them apart from around calving.

“They receive barley straw ad lib through the winter, but no hard feed until about four weeks before calving and for a further month after calving.

“They then receive a home-mixed ration of barley and lupins, with both crops grown on the farm.

We grow lupins one year in two, with enough grown for two years feeding requirements, so no feed, apart from minerals is bought in.

 

Outwintering

“Through the winter, we feed barley straw with a bale unroller and simply lay it across the field and let the cows pick at it.

This avoids excessive poaching damage to the fields and ensures the manure is spread across the field too, rather than being concentrated around a ring feeder.”

Heifers calve at three years of age.

Chris preferrs this to two-year-old calving as it gives heifers a chance to put some growth on first.

“Our heifers are run on a block of Environmentally Sensitive Area grassland to grow on, and this suits both the heifers and the farm.

It means they have good levels of forage to eat, but doesn’t allow them to grow too quickly.”

 

As the cows remain outside all winter, they calve outside too, meaning sire selection is paramount. An easy-calved bull with the potential for growth is preferred.

“I look closely at the breeding values and always look for a quiet bull with easy calving attributes,” says Chris.

“I learnt a lot about recording when I first went to France to source Limousins in 1973 and believe the right records are essential.

For instance, when I was in France buying heifers, I looked to buy those which had relatives retained in the herd or sold to other breeders.

“Any whose mothers hadn’t bred anything kept for breeding didn’t interest me.

I wanted proven bloodlines.”

Chris’ long association with Limousins started when he and his brothers bought a bull from Cambridge AI centre in 1972.

“I’d seen a Limousin bull on a stand at the Royal Show that year and was impressed with him, so thought we’d give them a chance if the opportunity arose,” says Chris.

“When we bought the bull, we put him with six Hereford cross Friesian heifers and were so impressed with the calves that we immediately decided this was the breed for us.

“When we started selling the progeny deadweight through Brighton Abattoir, the manager there was able to pick the carcases out from the Hereford and Sussex crosses we were sending with them and wanted more of the same.”

Nowadays, half the herd is bred pure, with the remainder put to a Sussex bull.

“These Sussex calves thrive off the milky Limousin dams and are ideal for the local butchers’ trade, which is what we target them at.

They produce handy weight carcases and have excellent meat quality.”

Calves from the herd are housed for their first winter, with steers sold privately from the farm as suckled calves. Whatever heifers aren’t needed for replacements are sold too.

“The Sussex cross heifers are retained for on-farm finishing and sale to a local abattoir,” he says.
Nucleus

It was another similar chance encounter which led Chris to the Lleyn breed as the base for the sheep flock. Once again, he was quick to see the breed’s potential.

“I’d heard about them from a contact we had from breeding Texels, so I headed off to a sale in North Wales to see what I could get.”

He initially bought from four or five different breeders, just getting what he could at the time.

Then he bought a half share in a ram and borrowed another ram and started breeding with five different families.

“As I built up numbers, I developed a close nucleus of 60-70 pure-bred Lleyns and crossed the rest with a Texel,” says Chris.

“Now we still have the 60-70 pure-breds and breed a portion of these pure to produce replacements for the nucleus and then put the rest to a Texel to breed ewes for the main flock.”

It’s a system which is working well for the farm and means there are fewer lower grade wether lambs to be sold.

“A Lleyn wether is never going to be the best lamb, so having as few of them as possible means we can maximise our income from prime lamb sales.

“Texel cross ewes are either put back to a Texel again or crossed to a Charollais, both of which work well for us and thrive of our ground.”

Farm facts
• Mixed enterprise covering 344ha (850 acres)
• Downland farm, mostly shallow soil overlying chalk
• Limousin suckler herd of 70 head
• 350-ewe Lleyn and Texel cross flock
• Cows fed barley straw in winter, followed by a home-mixed ration of barley and lupins
• Barley and straw fed ad lib in winter
• Half of the Limousin herd bred pure, with the rest put to the Sussex bull
• Sussex crosses targeted at local butcher’s trade
• Nucleus flock of 60-70 pure-bred Lleyns
• Rest put to Texel to breed ewes for the main flock

Tuberculosis - TB

 

History of Tuberculosis

In the 1930s tuberculosis was present in approximately 40% of dairy cows in the UK.

At that time the cattle were kept fairly closely confined in conditions of poor ventilation, which allowed spread of the disease. T

he tuberculous lesions in the udders allowed bacteria to enter the milk and in the days before pasteurisation this posed a great risk to humans drinking the milk.

In fact over 50,000 cases per year were occurring in the population.

Compulsory testing was begun with slaughtering of infected animals. In addition milk was pasteurised to further reduce the human risk, with all untreated milk containing a warning to that effect and herds supplying untreated milk subjected to a strict TB control testing regime.

Current Status

Cases of tuberculosis have now started to increase in the UK, with exact numbers difficult to know precisely.

Numbers are difficult to quantify because of the backlog that has arisen in TB testing following the recent Foot and Mouth disease outbreak when all testing stopped.

However up to the end of 2000, around 7,000 cattle per year were slaughtered as reactors.

There are concerns that the disease is spreading into new districts, with some areas affected where TB has not been seen for many years.

Public Health Issues

Bovine tuberculous is potentially transmitted to humans via the meat or the milk.

However cases are rare since the bacterium is killed by pasteurisation in milk and by cooking in meat.

Human infections with M.bovis have been seen which have either been caught abroad or occur in often elderly people drinking contaminated raw milk.

There is no evidence of foodborne infection in the UK.

There does remain a small risk to workers, for example, in slaughter plants handling infected cattle carcasses being infected by cuts or inhalation.

The programmes in place to test the cattle population removes for slaughter those cattle suspected and confirmed of having the disease.

Tuberculosis Transmission and Epidemiology

The exact details of the transmission and epidemiology of TB are not known with complete certainly.

However there is very strong evidence that badgers are implicated and are in fact the main wildlife reservoir of the disease.

Measures can be taken to reduce the likelihood of cattle being infected by tuberculous badgers, by limiting contact between cattle and badgers.

For example; by fencing off sets to prevent cattle investigating them, burying dead badgers found on the farm and preventing badgers getting into farm buildings, feed stores, water troughs and silage pits.

The likelihood of cattle infecting other cattle can be reduced by adequate ventilation in buildings, checking stocking densities and spreading slurry over fields not grazed by other cattle.

Where it is not possible to keep a closed herd then all bought-in cattle should be TB tested and subjected to quarantine.

Extensive epidemiological research is currently being done to elucidate what factors influence whether or not a herd has TB, how it is spread (faeces, urine, milk, aerosol etc ) and the relative importance of cattle to cattle, badger to cattle and cattle to badger interactions.

The significance of other wildlife, for example deer, in the disease is also being investigated.

Cattle Control Measures

A testing routine, using a highly sensitive test ( the comparative intradermal skin test ) is in operation for TB surveillance purposes.

All cattle, with the exception of beef fattening units, are tested at intervals of 1,2,3 or 4 years depending on the farm's geographical area and its history.

Movement restrictions are put in place where reactors or inconclusive reactors are found or where tests become overdue.

All reactors are slaughtered and in-contacts traced and tested.

Research is being done into the production of a vaccine, to be administered to cattle, but which does not interfere with the tuberculin test.

The current test for TB does not differentiate between infected and vaccinated animals.

Other work is looking at a test to diagnose TB in live badgers and the possible production of a vaccine for oral administration to badgers.

TB Statistics for Great Britain	Cattle tested	Herds tested	Reactors slaughtered	% reactors from england	Contacts slaughtered	Total cattle slaughtered
Year
1973	3469523	68670	1574		n/a	1574*
1974	3346935	65435	1624		553	2177
1975	3002214	61325	1666		n/a	1666*
1976	2509145	55617	1058		91	1149
1977	2641319	54645	764		92	856
1978	2464213	50674	685		245	930
1979	2351949	49580	633		532	1165
1980	2335356	48688	873		69	942
1981	2328742	49116	784		223	1007
1982	2471194	48343	569		45	614
1983	2301137	44830	621		36	657
1984	2289680	45285	660		86	746
1985	2192982	43826	699		166	865
1986	2100000	38000	513		132	645
1987	2114422	40613	810		363	1173
1988	1858766	36537	688		94	782
1989	1824789	35666	901		197	1098
1990	1859775	35989	1048		522	1570
1991	1944083	36468	1124		180	1304
1992	1975633	33866	1244		382	1626
1993	1904321	33731	1965		n/a	1965
1994	1981560	32244	2304		n/a	2304
1995	2277701	33749	2896		555	3451
1996	2412993	33016	3253		628	3881
1997	2216186	30148	3298		462	3760
1998	2506957	32654	5265		926	6191
1999	2881558	36159	6179		863	7042
2000	3003113	35610	7359		1323	8682
2001	1204653	11402	5634		915	6549
2002	4095915	44131	20680	77.67%	3064	23744
2003	4546051	45120	20763	75.00%	3058	23821
2004	4638761	44794	20469	75.45%	2595	23064
2005	4849241	43626	26345	78.03%	3748	30093
2006	5470484	50399	20468	73.02%	1814	22282
2007	5879496	51266	26646	71.26%	1554	28200
2008	6311937	53766	37751	70.26%	2222	39973
2009	6941610	57853	35364	70.48%	958	36322**

*   incomplete data
** provisional data

Global Food and Farming Futures: the case for urgent action

Nick Saltmarsh, SD Scene editor

24 Jan 2011

Foresight, the Government’s futures thinktank, today published the final report of its Global Food and Farming Futures project to explore the increasing pressures on the global food system between now and 2050.

The report argues for fundamental change to the global food system and beyond, highlighting the decisions that policy makers need to take today, and in the years ahead, to ensure that a global population rising to nine billion or more can be fed sustainably, heathily and equitably.

A compelling case for urgent action

In his foreword to the report, Professor Sir John Beddington, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser and Head of the Foresight programme, explains the impetus for the project:

“The case for urgent action in the global food system is now compelling.

“We are at a unique moment in history as diverse factors converge to affect the demand, production and distribution of food over the next 20 to 40 years.

“The needs of a growing world population will need to be satisfied as critical resources such as water, energy and land become increasingly scarce.

The food system must become sustainable, whilst adapting to climate change and substantially contributing to climate change mitigation.

There is also a need to redouble efforts to address hunger, which continues to affect so many.

“Deciding how to balance the competing pressures and demands on the global food system is a major task facing policy makers, and was the impetus for this Foresight Project.”

Professor Beddington outlined the failings of our current food system and the need for action:

“The Foresight study shows that the food system is already failing in at least two ways.

Firstly, it is unsustainable, with resources being used faster than they can be naturally replenished. Secondly, a billion people are going hungry with another billion people suffering from ‘hidden hunger’, whilst a billion people are over-consuming.

“The project has helped to identify a wide range of possible actions that can meet the challenges facing food and farming, both now and in the future.

“With the global population set to rise and food prices likely to increase, it is crucial that a wide range of complementary actions from policy makers, farmers and businesses are taken now.

Urgent change is required throughout the food system to bring sustainability centre stage and end hunger. It is also vital for other areas, such as climate change mitigation, conflict, and economic growth.”

Action for a sustainable end to hunger

These two headline failings of the current food system are amongst the report’s main findings, along with the need for wide-ranging action to address converging threats:

Threat of hunger could increase: Efforts to end hunger internationally are already stalling, and without decisive action food prices could rise substantially over the next 40 years making the situation worse.

This will affect us all – as more of the world suffers from hunger social tensions will increase, as will the threat of conflict and migration.

Wider economic growth will also be affected.

The global food system is living outside its means, consuming resources faster than are naturally replenished. It must be redesigned to bring sustainability centre stage:

 Substantial changes will be required throughout the food system and related areas, such as water use, energy use and addressing climate change, if food security is to be provided for a predicted nine billion or more people out to 2050.

There is no quick fix: The potential threats converging on the global food system are so great that action is needed across many fronts, from changing diets to eliminating food waste.

Challenges and opportunities for change

Identifying the “unprecedented confluence of pressures” on the food system over the next 40 years, the project has analysed five key challenges for the future:

A. Balancing future demand and supply sustainably – to ensure that food supplies are affordable.

B. Ensuring that there is adequate stability in food supplies – and protecting the most vulnerable from the volatility that does occur.

C. Achieving global access to food and ending hunger. This recognises that producing enough food in the world so that everyone can potentially be fed is not the same thing as ensuring food security for all.

D. Managing the contribution of the food system to the mitigation of climate change.

E. Maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services while feeding the world.

Important areas for change to address these challenges include:

Minimising waste in all areas of the food system: An amount of food equivalent to about a quarter of today’s annual production could potentially be saved by 2050 if the current estimate of global food waste is halved.

Balancing future demand and supply in the food system: This could include helping businesses to measure the environmental impacts of food so that consumers can choose products that promote sustainability.

Improving governance of the global food system: It is important to reduce subsidies and trade barriers that disadvantage poor countries. The project’s economic modelling shows how trade restrictions can amplify shocks in the food system, raising prices further.

The challenges identified in the report show an urgent need to link food and agriculture policy to wider global governance agendas such as climate change mitigation, biodiversity and international development. Without this link a decision in one area could compromise important objectives in another.

Ministerial reaction

Sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for International Development, the report has been welcomed by minsters in these and other Government departments.

Defra and DfID plan to respond to the report by championing a more integrated approach by governments and international institutions to global food security, alongside other international and national action.

Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman stressed the Government’s commitment to global food security:

“We need a global, integrated approach to food security, one that looks beyond the food system to the inseparable goals of reducing poverty, tackling climate change and reducing biodiversity loss – and the UK Government is determined to show the international leadership needed to make that happen.

“We can unlock an agricultural revolution in the developing world, which would benefit the poorest the most, simply by improving access to knowledge and technology, creating better access to markets and investing in infrastructure.

“To fuel this revolution, we must open up global markets, boost global trade and make reforms that help the poorest. Trade restrictions must be avoided, especially at times of scarcity. And we must manage price volatility by building trust and cooperation – and in particular by creating greater transparency around the true levels of food stocks.”

International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell described the report’s relevance as food prices rise again:

“With one seventh of the world’s population still hungry, this report is a clarion call to arms.

The food price crisis in 2008 increased the number of people suffering from hunger by 150 million.

Today reports of increasing food prices once again fill the news – and it’s clear from this new study that price volatility is only set to increase in the future making further food price spikes inevitable.

“Internationally, those with the least spend the largest proportion of their income on food, so food price shocks hit the poorest hardest and can have long term impacts on their health.

Britain is already working to tackle malnutrition, improve agriculture, and get new research into the hands of the poorest people.

Steps taken now and pushed through over the next few decades to stabilise global markets, reduce volatility and prioritise agriculture will have a disproportionate effect on ensuring food security for a predicted nine billion people by 2050.”

David Willetts, Minister for Universities and Science, focused on the role of research in tackling the issues identified in the report:

“Scientific evidence is fundamental to good policy-making.

Robust research helps us plan for the future and prepare for a wide range of important challenges including climate change, terrorism, health and in this case, food security.

“I welcome Foresight’s latest report on the future of global food and farming.

The UK is world-leading in this area of scientific research and I’m impressed that this study has not only looked at the issues in such depth but also pulled together such an impressive range of global experts.”

Further reading

The report outlines the findings of an extensive two-year study involving around 400 experts from about 35 countries. The project considered food and farming in oceans and freshwater environments as well as on the land.

Global Food and Farming Futures: full project details;

Global Food and Farming Futures reports and publications: full final report, executive summary, supporting evidence and other documents all available to download.

You may also be interested in...

Food publications round-up: global food, food issues census, food security, school food

Progress in food and farming

Farming for food security and biodiversity

Food security as a strategic priority for commissioning and use of evidence

Foresight report on migration and global environmental change

 

 

Food and Farming in Britain

I had a letter today from Labour's Shadow Minister for Food and Rural Affairs,extolling the virtues of her campaign to save the forests, but she ignores the food trade gap of £18,000,000,000 has.

What we import over what we export.

But Labour loves the EU so she does not want to rock that boat.

Mary Creagh MP - We need a food policy for Britain. One that corrects the balance of payments deficit.

 

The Origin of Food consumed in the UK (2008)

 

 

 Supply diversity differs across sectors.

Although 24 countries (including the UK ) accounted for 90% of supply of all food valued on a raw food basis in 2008:

-        24 accounted for 90% of fruit and vegetable supply

-        (UK supplied 23%),

- 4 accounted for 90% of meat and meat preparation supply,

- 3 accounted for 90% of dairy product and bird’s egg supply

(UK supplied 83%),

- 9 accounted for 90% of supply of cereals and cereal

preparations (including rice).

 

● The value of imports in 2008 was £31.6 billion compared to

£13.2 billion for exports, giving a trade gap of £18.4 billion.

 

● From 2007 to 2008 imports increased by 14.2% in real terms

and exports increased by 12%, though were lower in real

terms than 1995 levels.

 

● Since 1995 the UK trade gap in food, feed and drink has

more than doubled, refl ecting changes in competitiveness

and consumer taste.

 

In particular, the impact of BSE,

stronger sterling and foot and mouth disease were key

factors limiting exports in the period after 1995

 

 

Council giving farmers a head start

 

27 December 2011 | By Olivia Midgley

Farmers Guardian

Welsh sheep could return to menus

Overpopulation 'is main threat to planet'

By Steve Connor,
 Independent article

Science Editor Saturday 07 January 2006

Radical- And this is all about 5 years ago

Climate change and global pollution cannot be adequately tackled without addressing the neglected issue of the world's booming population, according to two leading scientists.

Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, and Professor John Guillebaud, vented their frustration yesterday at the fact that overpopulation had fallen off the agenda of the many organisations dedicated to saving the planet.

The scientists said dealing with the burgeoning human population of the planet was vital if real progress was to be made on the other enormous problems facing the world.

"It is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about" Professor Guillebaud said. "Unless we reduce the human population humanely through family planning, nature will do it for us through violence, epidemics or starvation."

Professor Guillebaud said he decided to study the field of human reproduction more than 40 years ago specifically because of the problems he envisaged through overpopulation.

His concerns were echoed by Professor Rapley, an expert on the effects of climate change on the Antarctic, who pointed out that this year an extra 76 million people would be added to the 6.5 billion already living on Earth, which is twice as many as in 1960.

By the middle of the century, the United Nations estimates that the world population is likely to increase to more than nine billion, which is equivalent to an extra 200,000 people each day.

Professor Rapley said the extra resources needed to sustain this growth in population would put immense strains on the planet's life-support system even if pollution emissions per head could be dramatically reduced.

"Although reducing human emissions to the atmosphere is undoubtedly of critical importance, as are any and all measures to reduce the human environmental 'footprint', the truth is that the contribution of each individual cannot be reduced to zero.

 Only the lack of the individual can bring it down to nothing," Professor Rapley says in an article for the BBC website.

"So if we believe that the size of the human 'footprint' is a serious problem - and there is much evidence for this - then a rational view would be that along with a raft of measures to reduce the footprint per person, the issue of population management must be addressed."

Professor Rapley says the explosive growth in the human population and the concomitant effects on the environment have been largely ignored by many of those concerned with climate change.

 "It is a bombshell of a topic, with profound and emotive issues of ethics, morality, equity and practicability," he says.

"So controversial is the subject that it has become the Cinderella of the great sustainability debate - rarely visible in public, or even in private.

"In interdisciplinary meetings addressing how the planet functions as an integrated whole, demographers and population specialists are usually notable by their absence.''

Professor Guillebaud, who co-chairs the Optimum Population Trust, said it became politically incorrect about 25 years ago to bring up family planning in discussing the environmental problems of the developing world.

The world population needed to be reduced by nearly two-thirds if climate change was to be prevented and everyone on the planet was to enjoy a lifestyle similar to that of Europeans, Professor Guillebaud said.

An environmental assessment by the conservation charity WWF and the Worldwatch Institute in Washington found that humans were now exploiting about 20 per cent more renewable resources than can be replaced each year.

Professor Guillebaud said this meant it would require the natural resources equivalent to four more Planet Earths to sustain the projected 2050 population of nine billion people.

"The figures demonstrate the folly of concentrating exclusively on lifestyles and technology and ignoring human numbers in our attempts to combat global warming," he said.

"We need to think about climate changers - human beings and their numbers - as well as climate change."

Some environmentalists have argued that is not human numbers that are important, but the relative use of natural resources and production of waste such as carbon dioxide emissions.

They have suggested that the planet can sustain a population of nine billion people or even more provided that everyone adopts a less energy-intensive lifestyle based on renewable sources of energy rather than fossil fuels.

But Professor Guillebaud said: "We urgently need to stabilise and reduce human numbers.

There is no way that a population of nine billion - the UN's medium forecast for 2050 - can meet its energy needs without unacceptable damage to the planet and a great deal of human misery."

Crowded Earth

* The human population stands at 6.5 billion and is projected to rise to more than 9 billion by 2050.

* In less than 50 years the human population has more than doubled from its 1960 level of 3 billion.

* China is the most populous country with more than 1.3 billion people. India is second with more than 1.1 billion.

* By about 2030 India is expected to exceed China with nearly 1.5 billion people.

* About one in every three people alive today is under the age of 20, which means that the population will continue to grow as more children reach sexual maturity.

* Britain's population of 60 million is forecast to grow by 7 million over the next 25 years and by at least 10 million over the next 60 years, mainly through immigration.

* This is equivalent to an extra 57 towns the size of Luton (pop 184,000)

* By the time you have finished reading this column, an estimated 100 babies have been born in the world.

Queen's Windsor estate gets £224k annual farming subsidy from EU

 

By Robert Verkaik

Last updated at 7:32 AM on 26th September 2011

Daily Mail Article

The Queen was paid more than £224,000 in EU subsidies for her Windsor farm estate last year, according to figures obtained by The Mail on Sunday.

Details of the payments, released under the Freedom of Information Act, raise questions about the country’s richest landowners benefiting from grants under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

The subsidy for the 500-acre dairy and cereal farm, which was founded by Queen Victoria’s husband Prince Albert, has increased by almost £40,000 since 2009.

Similar amounts are thought to have been paid to the Monarch to support her estates in Sandringham and Balmoral, but the Government refused to release this information.

Meanwhile, Environment and Fisheries Minister Richard Benyon’s family estates received £211,000 in EU farming grants.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has enforced an information blackout on all other farming subsidies paid to wealthy landowners, claiming an EU ruling last year prevents disclosure of the information.

Graham Smith, of anti-monarchist group Republic, said: ‘This shows the Royal Family’s willingness to help themselves to taxpayers’ money at a time when we are cutting our expenditure.

'This does beg the question of why they get this subsidy – after all, they are at liberty to give it back.’

A Palace spokesman said the rise was due to an increase in EU subsidy rates.

A Defra spokesman said: ‘Richard Benyon does not receive any single farm payments. He ceased to be a partner in the family farming business, Englefield Home Farms, prior to becoming a Minister.

On his appointment, the Minister made the Permanent Secretary aware of all his interests and the Permanent Secretary is happy there is no conflict of interest.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041502/Queens-Windsor-estate-gets-224k-annual-farming-subsidy-EU.html#ixzz1dfsFhoP7

How CAP reform could affect your farm

10 November 2011

Farmers Guardian

Further questions raised over NPPF

14 November 2011 | By Ben Briggs

Farmers Guardian

Tenants accuse land agents of ‘terror tactics'

23 November 2009 | By William Surman

Farmers Guardian

We must protect our agricultural workers - MEP

7 November 2011 | By Olivia Midgley

Rural workers protest over AWB cuts

25 October 2011 | By Olivia Midgley

RURAL workers have descended on Westminster this morning (Tuesday, October 25), to campaign over proposed changes to the Agricultural Wages Board (AWB).

Protesters - some dressed as scarecrows – arrived in London to raise awareness of the plight of more than 150,000 agricultural workers who face diminishing pay and conditions if the board is abolished.

They will lobby MPs in a bid to persuade them to back their campaign which has one objective - to maintain the AWB.

The workers say they are extremely concerned at the coalition’s plans to abolish the AWB, a body which has supported rural workers for generations and was set up specifically to protect this group of workers.

Unite national officer, Cath Speight, said: “According to the Government’s own estimates, returning back to the statutory sick and annual leave payments alone, could potentially take over £9 million a year out of workers’ pockets.

“This will be very unwelcome news to many of our members, who are already struggling to survive in the face of rising costs and higher food prices. Many have already been told by employers that should the AWB be abolished, their wages will be forced down - this is unacceptable and we cannot allow this to happen.

“During this present climate, where people are worried about food production, food security and food supplies, it is astonishing that this Government has chosen to attack the very workers who we rely on to maintain supplies and production.”

Farming- Most of our Food Comes From Farms !

 

Farmers Produce Food !

 

Beef Prices have gone through the roof !

So has Lamb !

After the demise of the Dairy industry caused by unsustainable prices for milk,

offered by the Supermarkets and Milk Companies, at the farm gate,

and the fact that 3000 farmers a year have been leaving the industry,

beef and lamb have are in short supply. Prices have gone throiugh the roof !

All the thousands of dairy calves have gone, that used to be reared for beef,

because the cows are no longer there to produce them ?

All those farmers and shepherds,

 who have left or reverted to dog and stick farming under crazy EU subsidy rules, have added to the problem.

Suckler Cow systems are only profitable on the poorer land,

so those going out of milk have switched to other systems like growing cereals for export.

The lack of a British Agriculture Policy for Britain is to blame,

 as the Europeans cash in on our loss, affecting seriously, our balance of payments.

Britain is a net importer of ALL Dairy and Red meat products.

That means we import more than we export

Not only is this one good reason to get out of the EU but we also need a British Minister for Food.

Some one who can be held accountable for the ever increasing prices in the shops.

 

The Radical

Unite: Work together for fair farm pay

Europe's Slow Agricultural Reform

Written by John Berthelsen

Thursday, 06 October 2011

A new report says it’s happening, but the global economy could reverse it. The 34-member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in a report issued Wednesday, says European farmers are much less dependent on the subsidies and other forms of support that have made them some of the world’s richest and helped to lock out cheaper goods from impoverished nations. The decline in support, according to the 184-page Evaluation of Agricultural Policy Reforms in the European Union is due to many factors, but high commodity prices – which now have begun to sink globally – are the primary cause for the decline. And despite 25 years of attempts by the European Union to cut support for farmers, they still earned 22 percent of their total annual income from government support. That is down from nearly40 percent between 1986 and 1988. There is a very real danger that commodity prices are going to fall steeply over the next three to six months as uncertainty lingers and demand slows across the globe. China, whether it comes in for a soft landing, as the optimists believe, or a hard one, according the pessimists, is a major factor. And, depending on what happens to Greece and the crisis in the Eurozone, prices could fall a further 15 to 20 percent, once again raising demands from the European agricultural community for support prices to come back into effect. Over the last month alone, corn is down 23.3 percent, wheat 22.4 percent and soyabeans 21 percent. Past price supports have delivered vast food waste. Although waste has slowly been reduced, in 2007 it was reported that European countries had been producing 1.7 billion more bottles of wine than they could sell, with hundreds of millions of bottles turned into industrial alcohol. Likewise, Europe faced so-called “butter mountains” and “milk lakes.” In 2009, the EU bought 30,000 tons of unsold butter at taxpayer expense. More than three times that amount of skimmed milk powder also accumulated in warehouses, paid for by the EU. However, the report says, “Successive reforms of the CAP have made the sector more market oriented, allowing producers to rely more on market signals and less on support to guide their production decisions.” Despite the decline in support, overall government support for farmers from the Common Agricultural Policy amounted to €77 billion in 2010 from direct payments and the impact of government policy on prices. Nearly 45 percent of the entire European Union budget for 2010 went to expenditures for the common agricultural policy, according to the report. In particular, critics complain that EU farm policy has damaged African agriculture, where farmers in the tropical sun in Kenya and other nations can produce vegetables far cheaper than they can be produced in Europe, including with shipping costs. Although some critics have complained about the effect on climate change from energy use to bring the produce to the northern hemisphere, in fact per-unit costs for transportation are relatively small and are more than compensated by the cheaper cost of energy to grow and cultivate in the tropics. Much of Europe’s produce is grown in heated hothouses and fertilized with chemical fertilizers.` Nor does the United States escape blame. Subsidies for US cotton farmers and others has kept cheap African cotton in Africa instead of on the mills and looms of clothing producers. Rep. Charles Stenholm, the ranking minority member on the House Committee on Agriculture, was quoted as saying that: "I would be willing to eliminate cotton subsidies tomorrow if all the other countries would eliminate their subsidies for fibers, but we're not going to unilaterally disarm our farmers in that world market." Whittling away at farm subsidies in Europe has been a long, slow slog. Efforts to reform farming have been continuing for 25 years, and sidetracked often. In 2002 for example, French President Jacques Chirac and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder agreed to preserve spending until 2013 The French and German agriculture ministries have announced they will set up a joint group to look at the policy after that. That is because especially for French and German farmers, trying to cut subsidies has been the third rail of European politics, bringing the farmers into the streets. Protection of European and American farmers has stalled the Doha Round of agricultural trade talks for eight years, since they broke down in 2003 in Cancun, Mexico. The Common Agricultural Policy “distorts the economy, requires costly administration and harms European export interests,” according to an organization called “Reform the CAP.”  It also stifles and distorts fair competition among member states,, undermines farmers’ self reliance, doesn’t take into consideration environmental concerns, damages biodiversity, fails to mitigate climate effects and doesn’t promote rural growth and development. The share of commodity-specific support has substantially decreased, being replaced by support that doesn’t require production of any commodity, the report continues. Domestic intervention mechanism, while they have been reduced, still provide a market floor for some commodity sectors.” As market price support is reduced, according to the report, “benefits include lower consumer costs…although taxpayers bear a larger share of the costs due to the introduction of direct payments.” Improving farm competitiveness has long been an objective of the CAP, but “There is a recognition that adjustments are needed to improve competitiveness and that some farms will not make it.” The EU has introduced measures thus to move some of the rural population out of farming and into other ways of making a living. The CAP “will have to continue to pursue a number of economic, environmental and societal objectives, and adapt to changing priorities,” the report says. “Growing demand and higher commodity prices will offer major opportunities to the EU agricultural sector, which will also face major challenges, including food security, sustainable use of resources, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, and market volatility.” Indeed, market volatility may well be the biggest issue the Eurozone and the CAP face as the global economic crisis returns with grim certainty. Nonetheless, according to the report, slow inroads continue to be made against protectionism. It calls for the removal of remaining impediments to the functioning of input and output markets, more open access to the European market and transparent EU-wide markets for the sale and lease of land, production quotas and payment entitlements, greater investment in agricultural innovation, introduction of an effective framework for risk management, steering clear of areas where private sector solutions exist, such as production contracts, insurance and futures contracts, targeted efforts to improve environmental agriculture, including direct payments to farmers, when necessary, for provision of environmental goods and services

Firm fined £112,000 after worker crushed in potato harvester

Keith Wannan, 34, from Cupar, Fife, died in 2009 when he was trapped between the rollers of the machine.

15 September 2011 13:11 GMT

A firm has been fined more than £110,000 over the death of a worker who was crushed in a potato harvester.

Keith Wannan, 34, from Cupar, Fife, died in September 2009 when he was trapped between the rollers of the machine. He had been replacing the rubber sleeves on the rollers ahead of the new harvesting season.

Mr Wannan was taken by air ambulance to Ninewells Hospital in Dundee following the accident, but was pronounced dead on arrival.

 

His employer, GJ Orr of Foodie Farm, near Cupar, was fined £112,500 at Cupar Sheriff Court for a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974.

The farm operator pleaded guilty to the charge at an earlier hearing.

The HSE investigation found GJ Orr had not conducted a proper assessment of the risks involved in "carrying out maintenance and testing work on the potato harvester".

It said: "As the work Mr Wannan was doing required the removal of fixed guarding, GJ Orr should have identified the risk of exposure to dangerous moving parts."

The investigation also found that there was "no safe system of work in place for maintenance to be carried out" and "no measures to prevent lone workers gaining access to moving parts of the harvester when the guarding was removed and the power was not isolated".

HSE inspector Peter Dodd said: "Mr Wannan went to work that day fully expecting to come home safe. But now his partner and his family have to come to terms with their loss.

"If GJ Orr had taken simple steps to protect their employees by thinking about hazards and risks, putting measures in place to prevent their employees being able to come into contact with dangerous parts of the harvester, this incident would not have happened.

"This case should act as a timely reminder to farmers of the very real dangers posed by their machinery when they are preparing it for harvesting, undertaking repairs or maintenance, or attempting to clear blockages."

Farmers For Action riled by free supermarket milk

16 September 2011

FARMERS GUARDIAN

 IN the week where UK dairy farmers’ costs were estimated to have risen by 13 per cent in the last year, an Irish supermarket franchise was reported as giving away two litres of milk to customers who spent more than £15.

 

France admits 6m hens won’t comply with cage ban

15 September 2011 | By Alistair Driver

 

 

Men to go without pants in pig castration protest

6 September 2011

 

 

Sixty sheep stolen in Gloucestershire

24 August 2011 | By Olivia Midgley

FARMERS GUARDIAN

 THIEVES rustled thirty ewes and their lambs from a field in south Gloucestershire.

 

Corn

Aug 20th 2011 | from the print edition

Frustration for start of Scotland's harvest

August 19, 2011 | By David Boderke

FARMERS GUARDIAN

 UNSETTLED weather continues to cause problems for the harvest throughout the UK, and in Scotland in particular.