Is that a cow?

So today I gowned a green paper suit, put around 5 bucket loads of disinfectant on my boots and was told that I should behave because I am representing the government. That’s right. I went on a farm visit.

I could talk about my professional feelings towards the visit- but that is best kept for when I am at work behind my desk. Instead I would just like to say a few things from my own personal standpoint. [Note, these are not the views of RPA, Defra or HM Government :@].

I firstly would like to say I really enjoyed the trip. I gained valuable insights into agriculture that you just can not appreciate when you are stuck behind a desk reading about EU subsidies!

Part of the trip meant we were able to see the lifecycle of the milking process (the farming side of the farm we went to had a rather large daily element). We started off by viewing some Heifers and other pregnant cows. Before I carry on I would like to say that the farm manager who was showing us around explained to us that everything is consumer driven, he also explained that for the majority of farms in the UK, animal health and wellbeing is of utmost importance, firstly because the supermarkets have strict standards (consumer demand…) and secondly because of regulations placed upon farms to abide by strict animal health procedures with the penalty of non-compliance a reduction in subsidy payment.

Anyway, back to the pregnant Heifers. As the farm primarily dealt with producing milk as this was most profitable for them (but not very) then females cows were important to them. The life of a female cow ranges from growing up (year) to pregnancy (artificial insemination or from a suitable bull if AI is unsuccessful), then when the calf is born after a few weeks it is taken away, this female cow then goes into producing milk- which is collected, after a few months the female is impregnated again, starting the whole cycle over again. One cycle occurs between every 1 and a half to 2 years and each female cow goes through around 3 or 4 cycles (depending on the cow and this is specific to this farm) through it’s life (even though cows can live to around 15).

When the Heifer/female cow has given birth the fate of the calf is dependant upon its sex (and if there are any diseases).  Female calves are obviously starting life in the milking cycle. Male calves are dependent on two things. The first is whether there is enough meat on them at birth. If it is possible to tell in the early stages of life that this calf will grow big and strong then it is sold on in market for consideration for the dinner plate. Weaker looking calves essentially have no purpose in the milk or food chain. In some circumstances they are put down because economically they have no use. However, this farm does note that there is a moral side and it is not all about economics. They are therefore more reluctant to kill the calf straight off and are likely to try and sell these calves on albeit at a very low price. Within this context we were taken to see such calves, some of which were only 4 days old, others 10 weeks old. We were told that this is the side of things consumers tend to miss when they buy or demand cheap milk. If you want your milk cheap then only the most productive animal is of economic use, those with no economic benefit are essentially useless.

We were taken to the main housing shed for the cows. This was a large open area, regularly cleaned- in fact it was being cleaned while we were there. It was not overcrowded and there was plenty of room for the cows to move and over the course of an hour I watched as cows had the freedom of movement of the length of the shed.

Finally on our trip we were taken to two different fields so we could assess things such as set-aside land, arable land, environmental stewardship and cross compliance (good agricultural and environmental condition). It should be pointed out that farmers only get subsidy payments without penalty if they keep their land in good environmental condition; there are also extra subsidy payments available for farmers who take part in environmental schemes such as countryside stewardship and planting hedgerows (for example). One of the amazing things that occurred to me was that the first field we were taken to was around 5 and a half hectares. Everyday at work I come across farmers who have fields about 5 times the size of this (and this is only one of their fields/parcels!).  But I thought this field I was in was huge. It made me appreciate how much land some farmers had (this is not the case when it comes to tenant farmers of course). Anyway, the farm manager explained that a lot of the field around Berkshire is of poor soil quality but one of the most popular crops to grow in this soil is corn. This is not the kind of corn that you have a dash of butter on top for dinner. No. The main purpose of this corn was to feed animals- such as those cows on his farm. Now I have heard of the statistic that around 60% of grown food crops in America go towards feeding animals involved in diary/meat farming,but you don’t appreciate how many crops are grown just for animal feed. I only started appreciating this whilst standing in the middle of a 5 hectare field.

I have to admit that despite being a vegetarian on moral and ethical grounds I now feel even guiltier for not being a vegan. It appears that it is pointless to say you will become vegetarian because you disagree with treatment of animals or the effect upon the environment that animal farming causes. If you were really serious about these issues then you’d become a vegan. But can I make this step? Vegetarianism is really easy for me; I have not been tempted to try meat once in over 2 years. But soya milk? I don’t know :-S

***   ***

There are two other points I picked up from the visit. Apparently, there are farms (rather big ones) who are still being screwed over by the larger supermarkets. This is because a contract can be made between the farmer and supermarket, the farmer will then fulfil his side of the agreement but then the supermarket turn around and say “Great, but we are going to pay you £15,000 less”. The farmer has no power in these circumstances. Of course what the supermarket is doing is illegal and of course the farmer does have the National Farmers Union to go to, but then that farmer will lose that supermarket’s contract. Therefore the farmer has no choice but to accept the new terms imposed by the supermarket.

This is not the first time I have seen this kind of undercutting. When I worked on building sites the way things are generally done is that the main builders will contract out jobs to other companies’ i.e. electrical work, plumbing etc. These companies will bid for the work; the lowest price for the quickest work plan will win. However, for a few of the electrical companies I have worked for after they had won the contract and signed the deal the builder has turned around and have said that the electrical company will need to cut their price by 5%. The electrical company (depending on its size) will not walk away because it needs that contract. Therefore two things happen. The first is that the quality of materials used will fall because money is tighter. This may not sound like a lot but the quality of the material can severely affect the quality and speed of the work. Secondly, and most importantly, the wages on offer falls. Most companies do things on price. This means that there is no fixed wage but the amount you take home at the end of the week depends on the work you do. The theory is that the incentive to you is to work quicker and faster in order to make more money. However if after you start working for the builders they ask you to lower your price then you can see situations where a first fix (putting in all the wires and cables whilst the house is being built- a second fix is when the walls and ceilings are up and you put the covers on switches etc) originally was say £500 and took 3 days to do, would now be £450 but still take 3 days to do, or because the quality of the materials falls can take 3 and a half days.

I’m digressing.

The final point I was pondering from my visit was the future of farming in England. We were told that the average age of a farmer was 59/60. We were told that there is a high illiteracy rate amongst farmers and many still didn’t (and refused) to have the internet. Some farms apparently are still running without electricity. Regardless of all this there are enormous pressures placed upon the farming community when it comes to inspections and paper work. A lot of farmers who went into farming straight from school years ago went into an industry that was purely manually based. Now because of the pressures imposed by the capitalist model and especially supermarkets, many farmers are hardly making a profit. The more efficient farms turn out to be those that are bigger. These bigger farms are able to claim bigger subsidy as well (SPS is based on potential land that can be used- the more you have the more money you get).

In the context of the average age of farmers, their illiteracy and the idea of it being purely manual labour, the pressures placed upon smaller farms in terms of the bureaucracy involved with farming (not all bad in terms of environmental care, animal health and food quality) means that many of these farmers may not get the full subsidy they are entitled to because they don’t fill out the relevant forms or make a mistake. On top of all this you have to remember that for a variety of reasons there is not an influx of younger farmers in the industry. Younger farmers would be more open to technology and bureaucracy because that is what the more recent generations have grown up with. But farming is not attractive to a huge majority of youngsters, even to those from a farming background because there is not enough money in it for the amount of work you have to put in.

Therefore could the future of farming be a few large companies? This would be of serious detriment to tradition and raise the entry levels for new farmers, but on the flipside larger farms can employ people to deal with the bureaucracy and then employ people to work on the farm. Could this help save farming? It would provide well paid farming jobs, but then what would be the result of this? Would animal health go down? Well larger farms would be able to experiment with new techniques and use the newest technology. They would also continue to be at the mercy of government regulation which ensures quality. The bad taste left in the mouths of the ethical consumer when it comes to market dominance of companies such as Tescos and Primark may not necessarily reflect if the same was to happen to farming. With Primark for example, they buy their clothes from a producer, they do not operate at the bottom of the chain, only buy from it. Farming would essentially be at the bottom of the chain- control this and you control the quality of the chain (in theory).

The idea of a larger more monopolised farming industry would still create problems. If one company was to collapse this would have a huge impact upon food prices and supply- this would be the same if these companies started demanding more for their product (because there is less competition)- food prices would go up. Finally there is still the problem of entry into the farming industry being higher and those small independent farmers whose families have been farming for generations will be wiped out- do we really want to do this?