The fact that Ben Gill found common ground with a university theologian should not be a surprise. The Rev Dr. is someone who has spent most of his life buried in text-book theory, but, just how does the Dr. relates Nature/GMO with religion, or does he think that scientist's are doing God's work. My reaction is "Jeeesus Christ".

One would have thought that Ben Gill would have faced up to reality now that he is the president of the NFU, and buried neck deep in the problems caused by technology. He was once quoted as telling farmers to "grasp the nettle of technology" at conference about biotechnology. Has he not realised that the farming industry is rolling around stark naked in a field of "nettles" now, why would anyone want to grasp another one?

WHEN YOU ARE IN HOLE, STOP DIGGING. Ben Gill wants to use a JCB.

INDEX

ORGANIC

While I agree with the aims and ambitions of the organic lobby, I am puzzled over the facts,

1:- With a current UK population of about 60 million and a sustainable population of 26 million, how are you going to feed the other 34 million. If the aim is to be self sufficient why are we in the EC? (Why are we anyway???)

2:- The percentage of chemicals used in agriculture is small compared with that used by food processing / medical / home use/industry or by society in general, yet the amount of publicity is of inverse proportion. The real problem is that society does not recognise them as such, or that they are produced by the same companies, who are also developing Genetically Modified Organisms (if you're worried about chemicals just wait till the results of this get loose)

3:- The myth that food is really very expensive. Rubbish. Expensive food is when food and rent ( up to the 1950's, and that was basic food, not TV dinners or fast food) is a weeks wages, not 10% as it is now, or put it another way, if it is expensive why is it that percentage of the population with a TV/ video/ computers/ telephone/ car or two/ pension/ healthcare etc. is so high. It comes from money that was spent on food.

4:- Why is it that society considers that all the benefits that it has gained from the 20th century are progress, regardless of the pollution that came with it, that farmers should be selected to live in the 19th century.

5:- People are living longer, a product of our inorganic health system. There are more single parent families, a product of our inorganic society. They need houses to live in, factories/offices to work in, roads to travel on. All of which takes agricultural land. Historically, towns were built in the center of an agricultural area, even London which is a river delta, expansion of those towns and cities has meant that farming has moved to less productive land, the 1939/45 war pushed this further because the need to be self sufficient was essential.

6:- In the 19th century about 70% of the working population was engaged in base industries (farming/ mining etc), now it is about 2%, there are 5 times that involved in processing/merchanting/retailing of that food, yet when a food scare emerges who gets the flack?? Farmers.

7:- Why is it that humans are not allowed to live organically (or haven't you notice that when a native tribe is "discovered", the "go-gooders" move in with a bible and medicine) and animals are not allowed to live inorganically. Do as I say, not do as I do.

8:- I will stand by the fact that every inorganic acre that I have farmed is more environmental friendly than the acres that most of the critic's live in. I have yet to see an environmentally friendly town.

INDEX

Supermarket pricing and double talk.

The article highlights the meat sector but the same can be applied to all "commodities". It is all about the power game, in order to increase profits the multiples have centralised purchasing control to reduce costs, the consequence of which are :-

1:- Instigated procedures on suppliers which cost money, but not theirs.

2:- Shifted cost centers on to suppliers, transport is prime example i.e. where they once paid the transport they now designate the haulier and set the price that the supplier pays.

3:- Packaging is another, the colour/style of the pack can be changed by a new buyer because he/she does not like the current one, with obvious consequences.

4:- Suppliers sending produce 200miles and the store down the road being supplied by someone 200 miles away, and they say producers will have to be more efficient. Is efficiency judged by the ability to shift cost on to some else, or the ability to remove unnecessary costs?.

5:- The instigation of internal gimmicky procedures to fit either the whim of the buying/IT/tech./?? dept. has increased their costs (one "whim" by 75%), good, except rather than learning from it they lower the purchasing prices to keep their budgets on target.

6:- Fighting wars with their competitors for market share. A Tesco customer rarely if ever go in Sainsbury/Safeway/Asda/etc. to find a 2p difference on a can of beans. Where a customer shops has more to do with aesthetics and locality than price.

Coming from a farming background the supermarket spokesman should talk to his family, or won't they talk to him. If farmers should not attack their biggest customers, then the customer should not bankrupt their suppliers, and if retail prices should not fall to follow farm-gate price then they should not rise either, or follow dubious practices like "cross-pricing" which is not an option available to suppliers who have been forced to "specialise". As for their falling margins read again items 1-2-3&4.

INDEX

Food Production.

PAST (40 years ago)

1:- Provincial markets.

a:- 75-80% of fresh food through-put.

b:- fresh food was 75% of food consumption.

c:- fast-food was a speeding lorry, a bag of crisps or a Mars bar.

2:- Super-markets

a:- just starting to get established, but still largely a group of shops with local purchasing of fresh-food.

b:- prices were based on the market price plus a premium.

3:- Overall factors.

a:- chemical production and use (compared with to-day) was in its infancy with use limited to the generation of lethal chemicals that came from Hitler's extermination program, the problems associated with these materials gave rise to the plethora of legislation inflicted on us to-day. (some of these chemicals are still in use)

b:- environmental factors were, it is raining or it is sunny.

c:- the household income was consumed by food and housing.

d:- the government was still principally of the land-owning fraternity.

Now

1:- Super-market.

with 75-80% of food sales.

high degree of competition between 5 major players, several others following with larger throughputs than the largest chain 20 years ago. 1:- Tesco 2:- Sainsbury 3:- Safeway 4:- Somerfield 5:- Asda 6:- Co-op 7:- Morrisons 8:- Marks &Spencer. With Tesco having taken the lead from Sainsbury, competition has changed up several gears, Asda flexing it's muscle with a very aggressive buying policy, Somerfield were accused of mal-practice with it's policy of local pricing, M&S will not be content with it's reputation of being the top-quality low ranking store. Policies such rationalization, linked products, cross-pricing, expecting suppliers to support loss-leaders, routine promotions, rebates from suppliers/packaging/transport day-bags etc., ever increasing demands on quality and regulation, are now well established. Further control can be expected by installing their QC into the packhouses (at the packers expense of course) to clear the backlog at the distribution centers, rejections (in theory) would a thing of the past, but customer complaints would still be the packers responsibility.

aided by over-production and increasing availability of imports. Competition from Spain although considerable will decrease in importance as the greater threat of the Eastern Block and third world develops.

profit of the top super-markets equaling or greater than the total farm profitability of the U.K. In fact farming has a turnover of £18 billion and a debt of £7 billion.

seasonal cropping is coming under strong challenge from selected imports. A programmed supply from Spain/Italy/etc. is becoming more attractive to the buyers rather than the risk of a 2day frost/rain knocking out U.K. production for a week or more.

household income is dispersed mainly on the essentials like car/TV/video/holidays/health-care/pensions etc. with food well down the list.

successive governments/EEC have encouraged/enforced a cheap food policy in order to encourage consumer spending on manufactured goods, this trend is now irreversible without destroying the capitalist society as we know it. The super-market system is a product of that policy, whether it is morally or political wise of government to allow such a system to get as powerful as it is with excessive profits at the expense of a base industry such as farming, to the extent that selling has more income than the production, remains to seen (but when did morals have anything to do with politics?).

EEC grants in the 70's encouraged mechanisation, the by-product of this policy was reduction in labour. Technology escalated with the increase of money available from machinery purchases, further reductions in labour. The resulting spiral is still going on, being fed from varying sources. The consequence is a public that is now divorced from agriculture, and a large proportion that has suffered from the changes, and with no understanding of, or sympathy with farming requirements. Farming still requires the attention of government, but the requirements of farmers in terms of political muscle is null and void due to the farming population being down to about 2%.

2:- Alternatives.

a:- processing.

main outlets are super-markets and fast-food chains.

demands on quality are greater and price more competitive.

30% of the food budget is prepared foods and increasing ever year.

b:- direct sales

demands are less, so is the price.

will become more competitive due to rationalisation of the super-markets.

c:- provincial markets

1:- will be with us for some years yet, but their influence declining as more outlets source direct.

3:-Overall factors.

Environmental. Pressures are increasing, with chances of the chemical era lasting another 10years being very remote, with genetic engineering being the next era. Out of the frying pan??. The chances of a 'power' commission investigating all consumption looks ever more likely. Water restrictions and changes to the accepted uses is due in the next few years. The ground-work has already been set in the codes of practice for "Air" "Soil" and "Water"

Political. current government with a high proportion of academic's/lawyers/welfare-workers and very few if any land-owners, the prospect of farming protection is limited, if not the opposite.

Population. currently approaching 60m with expansion slowing down, however with 20m of the worlds population on the move, it is a fair bet that a proportion is heading this way.

Health. the public is becoming more dependant on medicine and the NHS rather than the cause of their problem, i.e. carpets and central heating causing respiration problems etc. Over-enthusiastic prescribing by doctors has given rise to people reacting to anti-biotic's etc.

The future?

Tesco and Sainsbury have declared that they will be main-streaming organic produce, as these two are at logger-heads fighting for the top slot, can either back-down? With the genetic-engineering lobby fighting to get public acceptance, are we facing a future with three distinct areas of food production? with three display areas in stores?. Whether the genetic-engineers get accepted or not is largely academic, the multi-national chemical companies have bought most of the seed houses and are doing the work in third-world countries which are less environmental aware, it will come , however undesirable, there is too much investment already.

With over-production guaranteed from where ever source, the survivors in food production will be in the most favoured areas for a species, this is happening now, changes in the climate/population settlement and public opinion will escalate the situation to form separate consumer followers, satisfying that need will be the challenge.

Organic farming will not supply the population's needs on it's own. It will increase because the major super-markets will create the need along side an increase in the public reaction to chemical farming (regardless of how many chemicals that they use in the home). The trick will be to find the crop/s that will survive with the permissible inputs in a chosen location.
Chemical farming will be subject to ever increasing restrictions and chemical withdrawals. The longer a chemical is used and the increased rate of accurate testing equipment will hasten the end of that chemical. The cost of introducing new chemicals is prohibitive for anything that is not classed as a world wide crop, i.e. rice/maize/wheat/ potatoes.
Bio-tech farming is at least ten years away, even to get started, and maybe never if public opinion gets any more suspicious about scientists.
Fossil fuel, and it's derivatives, are finite, I mean it took millions of years to make it, yet most of it's been used in a hundred years. Governments and international companies are promoting international trade on the basis of a never-ending supply. The infrastructure of local sourcing has been dismantled in order to make companies, and shareholders, richer. If you can make sense of it, please enlighten me.

bcMar1996(2)

Index

Farming protest

A few basic facts need to be printed:-

1:- In 1938 food took 30% of household income. In the 70's = 18%. 95= 11%.

2:- It is the EEC/EU policy to produce cheap food and lots of it, this policy is backed up by subsidising the products that were required. (Not all farm produce is subsidised).

3:- The consumer products of today (TV/video .NHS. holidays, cars etc.) are available because of money that is not used in food purchasing.

4:- Approximately 75% of food is purchased through the super-market system, which require the producer to supply the product (which can be a years work)/packaging/transport to the depot/and a rebate based on the volume, for this they pay the princely sum of about 30% of the retail. They keep about 70% for what is often as low as 3 days work and instant cash in hand or bank.

5:- The super-market system realises a profit greater than the whole of UK agriculture. The top two are on a nett of £700m+ each.

6:- Dr. Cunningham says that farmers will have to be more efficient, he is singing from the super-market hymn book, they are "rationalising" out the small producers in favour of the big operations which grow or should I say ranch, like the cereal barons of East Anglia.

7:- The flak that farmers have had to take over BSE was not of their making. The government made a law requiring farmers to treat their cattle with organophosphorus chemicals for warble-fly, and permitted the feed companies to lower the temperature of offal treatment, all on the advice of scientists. The contents of which were not declared on the container. Do you know the real contents of your pet food??.

8:- Imported products, very often from third world countries who cannot produce enough to feed their own population, with the labour being paid in pence per week, to supply a population that is generally over-fed, over-paid, and over here.

9:- The tax system in this country subsidises the purchase of machinery that displaces people.

10:- More chemicals are used by the public, it's just they do not recognise them as such, and what about the chemicals used in the production of the consumer goods?.

Not that farmers are blameless, more people have been made redundant in the last 10 years than were on the "walk", and they want public sympathy??. As with society, the first instinct now is to grab the chemical bottle, instead of curing the basic problem.

The public has to make a choice, they want farmers to live and farm in the 19th century, while they live in 21st, which is OK if you are prepared to pay the equivalent 19th century price.

You cannot have 2 sheep per acre and make a living from £25 per sheep, or, as (I think it was) Bernard Mathews said "If your profit is 1p per chicken, you have to have a million chicken", that is cheap food, but it is not environmentally friendly.

Finally, scientists need to understand the implications of playing with that minute thread that is their scientific discovery.

Index Farming 3

Farming Politics Government Posters Humour Technology Religion Nature Me Links