by Louis Fell of George F White
TWENTY years ago a group of pop stars, incensed by the starvation in Africa, produced a Christmas song which sold millions of records around the world.
The proceeds helped the short-term food requirements of some but have also been used to produce self-sufficiency through agricultural infrastructure and training among the worst-affected people of Africa.
This year, the song was re-worked and re-released as the situation did not seem to have changed much, particularly with the huge crisis facing Sudan.
The chorus of the song is based on the words "feed the world", so why, I ask myself, have we seen grain prices falling back to the lows seen in 2002-3 and why is this English Government insistent on taking agricultural land out of production for so called "environmental benefits".
Why, in the twenty-first century, are we still singing about feeding the world, when the technology and production capability is there to ensure a reasonable standard of living for everyone in the world? Politics, religion and greed are still at the heart of these problems.
The positive message from this, however, is that there is still a place for UK agriculture in the world. The world population is ever-increasing and the land mass is shrinking - positive signs for the future.
This year brought many mixed fortunes for the agricultural world.
On December 9 last year, wheat was being traded for £108 a tonne and optimism was high for a good 2004 harvest with a reasonable prospect of a decent price. Today, however, prices are back to £62.50, following a very difficult harvest for most northern farmers, owing to torrential rain in July and August.
Waterlogged soils in autumn have also hampered a good winter drilling for 2005.
Livestock, conversely, has seen a better than average year, with prices remaining high throughout. The curse of BSE over British beef is eventually beginning to subside and the removal of the OTMS scheme is a sure sign that the Government has greater confidence in the beef sector once again.
It was pleasing to watch the new BBC programme Full on Food on prime time TV praising locally-produced food and commenting on the dominance of supermarkets and their effect on food miles.
It was outstanding that the roast lunch cooked from supermarket produce had a total food mileage of more than 16,000 miles, yet all they had to do was to visit the local farmers' markets and local shops for local fresh produce.
Quality, local, healthy food must be the image of British livestock to ensure our markets are not flooded by cheap international imports.
And so to subsidies. I won't bore you with the intricacies of the Single Farm Payment, but the manner in which Defra and the Rural Payments Agency have dealt with this is farcical.
Amendments for reference years sent to RPA in July are, in the majority, still outstanding and the standard response is: "We do not have any guidance on this matter as yet; further details will be released at a later date."
Who is making the decisions? By all accounts, a civil servant in his nice warm office in Whitehall who hardly knows the difference between a cow and a sheep, let alone the major impact foot-and-mouth had on livestock producers throughout the country.
The decisions will have an impact on farmers' subsidies for the next eight years. If civil servants can't make them, how on earth are farmers meant to? Crops have been sown, cows put to the bull and still we are in the dark.
The major decision to be made is whether to use the SFP to subsidise the other farming enterprises or to invest it elsewhere. After all, you don't have to grow the crop or keep the stock to claim it.
Farmers must look a lot closer at the figures and their long-term business strategy and begin to make changes now, rather than in eight years' time.
So are we free to produce whatever we wish? Yes. Farmers no longer need livestock to claim subsidy or need to grow an ear of corn, but there's always cross compliance, that 52-page blue book detailing Defra's control over agricultural land for the next eight years.
GAEC 3 "Waterlogged Soil" is a prime example. Farmers must not carry out mechanical operations to waterlogged soil unless the Secretary of State has made an announcement in exceptional weather.
GAEC 5 "Environmental Impact Assessment": you must not carry out a project (including fertilising, liming, pesticide application) on uncultivated land without permission from Defra.
Furthermore we have "authorisation entitlements" to grow fruit vegetables and potatoes - yet more heartache for many producers.
What about 2005? It looks as if grain prices may firm slightly and livestock prices look set to stay at current levels.
Farmers must be pro- rather than re-active; go to the bank manager before he comes to you. Longer-term farm business tenancies are being sought by both landlords and tenants and, as the Royal Institute of Chartered Suveryors has noted, market rents have dropped back since last year.
World population is increasing and we need to retain our flexibility to produce food as and when the world market dictates. We need to embrace this change and respond accordingly
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article