Gwyn Jones Farm diary: Debate on farming and its effect on the environment

Over the past 30 years or so, things have been very different as the environment has had much more attention due to lobbying groups, the media, and political parties who have put much more scrutiny and indeed regulation on our industry. Despite all that farmers have done in that period, we have headline catching statements such as, 60 more harvests left before our topsoil is depleted, the drive for Net Zero, various roadmaps, strategies, but in the end the truth is that food production, conservation and the environment must go hand in hand.

Whilst we were in the EU and under the Common Agricultural Policy, there were mechanisms to impose financial penalties by deducting monies from support payments (cross compliance) and given that there is little support now and the days of subsidised agriculture are probably over, that mechanism is not there. Many farmers believe that we are free therefore to do what we want, but I think different sanctions are likely to emerge. Whilst some of the environmental schemes are ambiguous in their guidance, they will be difficult to enforce, just as so many rules and regulations are very difficult to enforce, but farmers comply in the main as they might just be the one that gets caught.

Progressive arable farmers say that banning neonicotinoid seed-treatment for various crops, has meant that the other controls used are in fact worse for the environment, and this is true of other banned substances too. These are unintended consequences, but we are always victims of unintended consequences these days in the rush to change things ‘for the better’. Scientists are often compromised by lack of funding; some scientists are totally driven to find ‘the right answer’. This does no one any favours and sometimes results in bad science, which is a disaster as too many people are sceptics of science as it is.

If we then turn to imported products, we find that many are produced to different standards and do indeed contain the very chemicals banned in the UK. This is exporting our environmental problems to other countries, just as we export our animal welfare and low antibiotic use to other countries whenever we import meat, eggs and dairy products produced to different standards. Progressive farmers also point out that whilst the maximum residue levels in food for pesticides are vanishingly small, for substances such as cyanide they are at 100 times that level. They therefore ask why? It cannot be right to restrict farmers armoury for pests, whilst allowing other poisons to be consumed?

It is also interesting to watch solar panels prolificate in the countryside, some of them on good productive land. This is allowed as it assists our drive for net zero, just as we import hardwood chips to burn in power stations from vulnerable forests or allow crops to be grown and used as feedstock in anaerobic digestion. More and more of this is likely to happen as farming becomes unprofitable and farmers look for alternative contracts rather than giving up the farm. One cannot blame them for that, indeed as businessmen and women, they will choose the most profitable route, especially as volatility is so prevalent in commodity (food) markets.

The biggest threat of all is pollution. Not deliberate or inexcusable pollution, but diffuse or low-level pollution, which is very difficult to control, especially with weather patterns changing. There are at least 100,000 agricultural holdings in this country and most will be beef and sheep farms with little or no pollution, but for dairy farms, this is becoming a big issue. Pig and poultry units are already licensed and have strict regulations as well as the need for expensive environmental permits and licensing regarding storage and disposal of manure from their farms. A new application fee can be as much as £9,500 followed by an annual subsistence fee of around £2,500, considerable amounts of money.

Dairy farmers are in danger of similar treatment and today, many are a long way from being able to comply with such regulations, especially in the west of the country given the vast amount of rainfall. It’s about storage capacity, which needs to be covered, it’s about all the dirty water on the concrete which must be stored and then there is the problem of spreading. I am pleased to say that with the cost and restrictions on chemical fertilizer, dairy farmers do use their muck and slurry much more thoughtfully these days, making the most of the nutrients.

However, with closed periods when no spreading can take place, followed by open season despite weather conditions, they are not encouraged to do the right thing. In the autumn, the amount of Nitrogen applied diminishes month by month as the growing season comes to an end. However last autumn there was tremendous growth, and much more N could have been used in order to make up for a shortfall due to drought, but regulations are not flexible.

We all agree that there is an issue with nitrates in water, and Nitrogen Vulnerable Zones for farming and slowing down the deliberate dumping by water companies has certainly helped. I come back to the balance needed between producing food and the need to protect the environment, and many do not think farming has done enough. I would argue that a huge amount has been done and suggest that the pace needs to slow as mindset change and considerable investment takes time. The need to avoid unintended consequences, as that greatly undermines trust and is counterproductive. We also need to set the same standards for imports, otherwise we export both our environmental problems and our production.

I was really pleased to see Oatley lose a Supreme Court battle over whether the word ‘milk’ can be used to describe oat juice. It is pretty obvious to most people what milk is, and it is not that! In a unanimous ruling, the judge found the Swedish oat drink maker’s trademark unlawful. Supermarket shelves will now need to change and re-label, which the furious Oatley said will cause confusion and an uneven playing field; a win for ‘big dairy’. I hope we can now challenge other fake foods masquerading as the genuine article.

Bird feeders in gardens are spreading disease says Jack Baddams of BBC’s ‘Winterwatch’. At a glance, they might seem like a boon for small birds, he said, but in fact they are akin to fast food restaurants, spreading disease. Apparently, British households put out 150,000 tonnes of bird feed, which is a huge business these days. However, Jack Baddam says it is unnatural and an unlimited source of food which concentrates many different species in one spot and is not a good idea. My own observation this winter is that birds are finding more food around and have little appetite for the bird feeder in our garden. I think it’s a great shame to spoil people’s interest and in hard winters they would be saving many songbirds’ lives.