I have to say, as a food producer, I agree with Burkie in Kansas. Burkie has made 10 practical points:
1. Your producers have to spend more time filling out paperwork than actually tending their stock.....I guess that's "efficiency". The stock suffer....the people are devastated by your government's rules and reg's.
Absolutely right Burkie - we lost a pedigree heifer calf recently because we were trying to fathom out how to register other calves as per EU instructions.
2. A producer has no rights, whatsoever, because he is "mandated" to follow rules and regulations that require a Cambridge professor to comply with.
I agree with the "no rights" - Also it does need a Cambridge Professor or similar to understand the paperwork. It is a bit like a crossword - if you are in the mindset of the person who designed it you are OK - but these people live on a different planet to me. If they came down to the farm and milked the cows, fed the stock, mucked out, ploughed the fields etc etc, they might design their forms differently. Consequently we have to employ Agents or similar to verify the EU's IACS forms. IACS - Integrated Administration and Control System. Failure to complete the forms properly or a mistake on area leads to serious penalties and loss of money.
3. Your university people have created this mess you're in.
Sorry Burkie but the mess we are in has been caused by handing control of our agriculture over to the EU, thirty years ago to a foreign power. They have made a complete balls up of it in the name of the greater cause. One of the first things it did was introduce a quota system for milk production not based on each countries' needs. This enabled many EU countries to continue producing vast surpluses with the intention of dumping them onto the UK using UK taxpayers money to subsidise their production whilst our producers were NOT even filling our own market at the time.
4. "Be Efficient" was the resounding call-to-arms....and has resulted in nothing more than the very pictures shown in the CIFW website.
Absolutely Burkie - UK farmers in particular have had no alternative but to accelerate into the fast lane with production methods that are more akin to factory farming. Every technique MUST be employed to avoid a financial disaster at the end of the year. If we got the same subsidies that are afforded to the French, Irish etc etc, we would be able to decelerate to production methods we employed in the '60's. The worse thing about it is that France, Ireland etc are using UK taxpayer's money to support their "inefficient" system of farming, allowing them to supply us with food subsidised by our own money!!!!!! Every politician since 1972 has said the system MUST be reformed but they have done nothing about it - and never will!!
5. So your producers adopted practices, on the advice of your country's own "experts" and are now being bludgeoned to death for following that advice.
We adopted practices on the advice of ADAS (the Government's Agricultural Development and Advisory Service - now privatised but fully supported by the Government)
6. CIFW...may be more right than wrong. Issues of proper animal welfare are legitimate and justifiable.
7. I don't see anything in CIFW's news and pic's offering any resonable solution or alternatives. They only show you what needs shown to promote their own cause.
That is the rub. It is easy to throw stones, whip up money from wealthy actors, contribute to political parties and sway policies but at the end of the day, like most people, they forget that our Government is powerless to act - the policies for agriculture were given to the EU in 1972 and have been determined by the EU ever since and working on the blueprint set out in EUropaische WirtschaftGemeinschaft as published in Nazi Germany in 1942 being the foundations of today's EUropean Union.
Download for free from address below http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/EUroRealist/Germany1942
PAMPHLET #01 and PAMPHLET #02 Available now - further sections added weekly. PAMPHLET #03 concerns agriculture.
8. A producer is just that....a person or family or corporate entity that has chosen to produce to make a legitimate income and provide food for your people. Apparently, CIFW would rather permit meat to enter your country from other countries that have no such requirements as those imposed upon your own citizen producers. A vast amount of meat is being rejected because of quality. Chickens pumped up with water etc. Producers in the UK are mostly farm assured and were promised higher prices as bonuses for producing to the quality required by the supermarkets. Once achieved, the price was slashed and even with the bonus, the cost of production is not reached now.
9. If CIFW wants to do something positive, rather than send some lady in fancy hat and dress to gain money for its cause and organization, they should meet with people in the livestock industry...sit down and discuss and share their objections and resolve some solutions to the problems.
I have offered to discuss how to improve the comfort of farm animals with such organisations for years now - but I don't know if they want to hear from the people who are actually producing the food. I have suggested the money being diverted from production subsidies - Modulation which right now it is 2.5% is partly spent on improved animal housing - eg a grant for providing cow mattresses would improve the lot of 2.5million UK cows - not to mention ? 50 million in the EU.
10. This industry bashing has got to stop....or there will be no livestock production left in your country.
No livestock production in the UK - would be the objective of a lot of Groups. It certainly seems to have been decided in a secretive, undemocratic EU that Britain's livestock industry is as expendable as was our fishing industry. Once we are unable to provide even the current 50% of our food needs, we will finally have lost the battle and be forever subservient to the EU. I believe the loss of our fishing to the EU was more about the EU needing our oil, which lay in our territorial waters. The EU has now almost exhausted our oil fields as opposed to Norway who had the foresight to remain outside the web of the EU.