‘The NFU reacted angrily…’ is a common occurrence – try searching for it online and you’ll find a lot of examples.
Today’s example, at least as reported on Today, is the NFU reaction to Ian Boyd’s suggestion that the future British countryside will have more hedges and trees and fewer grazing animals in it.
This anger management course is available near the NFU Headquarters and there seem to be places available next weekend.
Anger and foot stamping by the NFU have been tolerated and even encouraged by previous governments despite the fact that the public purse underpins farm incomes and the interests of the farming industry are not the same as those of the general populace (and voters).
[registration_form]
If the NFU reacted angrily to the suggestion of more hedges/trees and less animals grazing it proves how entrenched they are in their views of “farming” and how out of touch they are with current research/public views.
Farmers must adapt now to people eating less meat BUT many are entrenched and bigoted in their views- the NFU appears to exemplify and encourage this.
They can’t be that angry because more trees and hedges are part of their plan
https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/achieving-net-zero-meeting-the-climate-change-challenge/
On Farming today Beef farmers is Scotland asking for bailout because of low prices. (and probably beef farmers elsewhere would like it).
Mark you grumble about the market not working. So………… …Discuss. ………… a real clearance and rewilding of the land? on the other hand our beef is better for the enviroment than that produced by the clearance of South American native vegetaion and soya fed beef.
Plenty more to discuss.
Well I certainly do not support the NFU but I can never understand when people expect them to campaign against food waste surely that is the complete population of the UK to have that complaint against them.
Sort your own problems out.
Think almost certainly there will be less animals,downside is there always seems more birds where there are animals.
Question is who grew all these hedges in the first place??
Well that is a surprise it seems farmers did.
When the NFU ask us to continue to subsidise marginal farming because of food security issues then I don’t think it’s asking too much for them to be highlighting the fact a third or more of our food actually gets chucked Dennis. Otherwise the NFU could end up looking inconsistent at best and at worst as if it doesn’t really give a toss about anything except screwing as much out of the consumer, tax payer and land as possible for the more ‘aspirational’ farmer’s bank account. We would be considerably better at dealing with food waste if public money propping up uneconomic hill farms (and subsidising flooding) went instead into education so more people know about how our food is produced, how to cook and eat to reduce waste and have a healthier diet, and how to feed ourselves without compromising anyone elses ability to do so and seeing wildlife return not just save what’s left. If official anti food waste campaigns pointed out that cutting it means less herbicide, less pesticide, less fertiliser in the countryside and more space for nature then maybe they’d have more of an impact. At present the core reason for doing so seems to be to prevent methane production from waste food in landfill contributing to climate change – of course farming itself contributes to that too, but along with everything else that seems to be missing from the message. Is rather limp govt work to raise public awareness about food waste anything to do with appeasing the farming lobby? Or maybe I’m just being an ungrateful townie git for thinking that farming carries any responsibility what so ever for food related issues. PS If there are any farmers out there genuinely getting a raw deal instead of asking for more from the public purse they should ask for some of the grants, subsidies, compensation flowing to Scottish crofters, because they keep a few token sheep, to be redirected to them.
Well no way is all the food thrown away from UK households any fault of farmers simply a case of people in general must have so much money so no care about the waste.
No way would that have been happening until late 20th century and certainly absolutely unnecessary waste.Terrible as guess most goes to costly landfill.
Asking for subsidy for marginal farming in the name of food security rather than that money being used in public education to cut waste, drive healthier eating and have more wildlife and less flooding is what is technically known as ‘taking the piss’. Food security has never meant the NFU campaigns against farmland being sold to developers for megabucks I notice. If I was a farmer I’d go to great lengths to ensure people knew the NFU didn’t speak for me, it’s a total embarrassment as a ‘professional’ organisation.
Les, if farmers cut production to avoid waste the first result would be higher prices.
Educating the general public to avoid waste is nothing to do with farmers even moderately educated people must have the sense if they used it to buy no more than they need.
Problem is partly both husband and wife work have little time to cook so buy something simple to microwave probably not very nice so bin it.
Almost everyone is so well off they can afford to throw food away.
A sad fact of modern life.
Sorry Dennis the point clearly isn’t getting through to you the NFU expects Joe Public to subsidise crappy farming for food security reasons supposedly, but doesn’t point out to same public that a third of our food gets wasted, and not all by consumers incidentally. It’s about a gravy train for some not food security for all. A friend who worked at Tesco told me the amount of good quality meat that gets binned there every night is scandalous. I wonder how the amount of meat chucked by supermarkets compares with that produced by subsidised sheep farming? If the NFU wants us to believe they are interested in anything beyond getting in as much dosh as possible for the more grasping farmer then that’s a question they should be asking. How can any stated belief in maintaining food security not deal with food wastage wherever it occurs?
The issues surrounding food waste and food production are complicated by the global market place. I am happy to buy organic, UK produced meat but avoid products containing meat from unknown sources. Yes, I know that this type of meat is more expensive but less likely to be wasted or eaten every day. Much of the subsidised sheep rearing in this country is not used for UK consumption and the subsidy seems to be more about propping up agriculture on marginal land. Another complication is the importance of grazing animals in maintaining many of our remaining wildlife rich areas. As with so many issues in the modern world we have to ‘do our homework’ to avoid the propaganda of vested interests.
Sandra there are huge swathes of our uplands that have been and continue to be ruined by sheep grazing, much of Mid Wales where I now live, Limestone areas of the Yorkshire Dales, the Cheviots and the classic is the Lake District–a landscape created by 1000 years of sheep overgrazing!
Yes, I agree Paul, I wasn’t attempting to justify the subsidies for upland sheep rearing.
Paul, general public get these themes of overheating until you all get sucked into believing it.
There really is no way of overgrazing unless like the odd one of two bad apples it applies too.
There is little enough profit made from cattle or sheep even when kept with good food all the time and any overgrazing results in some form of stunted growth that is to be avoided.
If you want the grassland turned into forestry then that is a different matter entirely but overgrazing is a product of biased opinions from people who do not know what they are on about.
It is a typical case of say something enough times and everyone seems to believe it.
Overgrazing would result in poor performance in some way and 99% of farmers would avoid it at all costs.
Dennis many of the Hills of the places I mentioned are eaten short by sheep the vegetation is hugely modified by their grazing, loosing much of its biodiversity. Much of the hill country in these places should be shrubs and trees kept out by the mouths of sheep, some of it looks like bowling green or cricket pitch all down to sheep and the subsidized hill farmer.
Conservation seems enthralled by the NFU’s ‘if we lose one inch of land we’ll all starve’. Farmers aren’t – when did you hear a farmer objecting to his solar farm proposal because it would cut food production ?
Non-farmers are looking down the wrong end of the telescope – the key issue here is farm income, nothing else, because without a positive bottom line there is nothing else. And there are really serious problems – since the industrial revolution value has been sucked out of rural areas. Between 1976 and 2004 the real value of British timber fell by 5X – not 1/5th, 5 times – and its been much the same in farming – this is not a functioning market, with thousands of suppliers and a few, hugely powerful customers driving prices down so every step of intensification is met by an equal pay cut.
At the other end of the game, cheap food has become a joke as the supermarkets and processors find ever better ways to sell us more expensive food with ever cheaper ingredients – whilst carefully shaping our eating habits with chemistry and advertising.
What’s the answer – well, most simply we need to work back from what we want and need from the countryside whether its health & recreation, water, wildlife, carbon, food – and use the money we are already spending to pay for it. And the sums are already there through the Natural capital Committees work.