The 25 year Environment Plan – the wait is over

After months of waiting the Plan has finally been published and launched by the Prime Minister. So ….. has the wait been worth it? Of course this is just a plan BUT if it is delivered an awful lot to do with the environment will change for the better. There will of course be those who say it doesn’t go far enough here and opportunities have been missed there – they will probably be right too. BUT, my goodness who would have thought a plan such as this would have been published during the Paterson or Leadsom eras? I’m not going to systematically review the document I’m just going to pull out a few bits and pieces that caught my attention and made me smile.

You can download and the the 25 year plan here and I recommend you do 

To start with I wonder whether the cover of the report contains a Defra joke? This is Mam Tor in the Peak District with the sun rising in the background (at least I assume it is rising). It is owned by the National Trust who are developing plans to encourage hen harriers and peregrines back into the area. A new dawn is breaking …. hang on …. that was somebody else.

Back to Gove, he repeats in his introduction this –

We will support farmers to turn over fields to meadows rich in herbs and wildflowers, plant more trees, restore habitats for endangered species, recover soil fertility and attract wildlife back. We will ensure broader landscapes are transformed by connecting habitats into larger corridors for wildlife, as recommended by Sir John Lawton in his official review.

In the main report we are told again that subsidies are on the way out.

£3.2bn is spent in the UK under the CAP. £2.59bn of this is spent under ‘Pillar 1’ – the ‘basic payment scheme’ (BPS). This pays farmers according to the amount of land they own, rather than the outcomes they achieve. It concentrates money in the hands of those who already have significant private wealth, without improving environmental outcomes.

And that the ‘greening’ measures have failed and that only a fraction of the money has been spent on things that make a difference.

There have been efforts to improve this by ‘greening’ one third of BPS payments – but scholars have recently found these to be largely ineffective. Just £0.64bn – 20% of the total – is spent on environmental stewardship programmes under ‘Pillar 2’.

The principle public good ….. that is progress!!

After a period of stability to ensure a smooth transition, we will move to a system of paying farmers public money for public goods. The principal public good we want to invest in is environmental enhancement.

OK nothing specifically about uplands, hill-farmers or Commons but Gove covered them in his OFC speech last week – see here. These topics will be specially covered in the Agriculture Command paper due in the Spring and all will be well! Hill-farmers will be supported and the uplands will be restored.

Incentives ….. and ….. the ‘polluter pays’ – I never thought that I would read that regarding fertiliser and pesticide usage

We will introduce a new environmental land management system to deliver this. It will incentivise and reward land managers to restore and improve our natural capital and rural heritage. It will also provide support for farmers and land managers as we move towards a more effective application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle (whereby for costs of pollution lie with those responsible for it).

Here is the strong influence on Government that the Natural Capital Committee has had. Before the NCC ‘externalities’ were just jargon from economists but now it looks like we will all be using the word to reduce pollution.

Farming can be a powerful force for environmental enhancement but it currently generates too many externalities such as emissions from livestock and pollution from fertilisers and pesticides. Overall, farming is now the most significant source of water pollution and of ammonia emissions into the atmosphere in the UK. It accounts for 25% phosphate, 50% nitrate and 75% sediment loadings in the water environment, which harms ecosystems.

Finally a clear and not tacit admission that atmospheric pollution harms soils and alters vegetation.

By ensuring fertilisers are used efficiently, we can cut the air and water pollution that harms public health and the environment, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Poor storage of manure and slurry can lead to the release of harmful chemicals and gases such as ammonia (in 2015, more than four-fifths of ammonia emissions in the UK stemmed from agriculture). This can cause acid rain, combine with pollution from traffic and industry to form smog, and harm soils and vegetation.

A clear indication that peat bogs will be conserved and managed better in the future.

Our peat bogs and fens are important habitats that provide food and shelter for wildlife, help with flood management, improve water quality and play a part in climate regulation. Most peat soils support ecosystems that are sensitive to human activities including drainage, grazing, liming and afforestation. This makes them susceptible to degradation if poorly managed.

If I were still working at Wicken Fen on the National Trust’s Vision or the Wildlife Trust’s Great Fen project I would be very excited about this – opportunities, opportunities, opportunities.

Over the last 200 years, we have lost 84% of our fertile peat topsoil in East Anglia. The fens there could lose the remainder in just 30-60 years given current land management practices and a changing climate. In view of this, we intend to create and deliver a new ambitious framework for peat restoration in England.

Habitat creation on a grand scale …

Through changes in the way we manage our land, we will develop a Nature Recovery Network providing 500,000 hectares of additional wildlife habitat, more effectively linking existing protected sites and landscapes, as well as urban green and blue infrastructure.

Five years ago commissioning a review into National Parks would have been a recipe for their further emasculation – this can only mean they are going to be strengthened and properly funded! Who to chair the review? Dame Fiona Reynolds would be a good choice in my view.

The UK’s first National Parks were created by an Act of Parliament in 1949 following the government’s 1947 Hobhouse Report, which remains the basis for most protected landscape designation in England today.

Now, 70 years on, the Government will commission a review for the 21st Century. This will consider coverage of designations, how designated areas deliver their responsibilities, how designated areas are financed, and whether there is scope for expansion. It will also consider opportunities to enhance the environment in existing designations, and expand on the existing eight-point plan for National Parks to connect more people with the natural environment.

To my eyes much of this plan looks excellent, of course it will only be effective if things happen – that is the next stage.

This tweet which I posted earlier sums up my feelings

There is also an annex which was published alongside the main report – this is also very good – it is full of useful data with url links to the sources. You can download the annex here.

I can’t see the Defra joke though in this image – can you?

The mystery of Vancouver’s sheep figures on Dartmoor in 1808

Charles Vancouver’s General View of the Agriculture of the County of Devon [1] written in 1808 is a widely cited source with regards to grazing and potential agricultural improvements on the Dartmoor Commons.

Vancouver’s book is an amazing treatise on the state of agriculture across Devon in the early 19th century and while much of its focus was on agricultural improvement it contains several sections about the grazing potential of the Dartmoor Commons.

Vancouver described Dartmoor as follows

The whole surface of Dartmoor, including the rocks, consists of two characters, the one a wet peaty moor, or vegetable mould, but affording good sheep and bullock pasture, during the summer season. The other an inveterate swamp, absolutely inaccessible to the lightest and most active quadruped that may traverse the sounder parts of the forest. P281

He then goes on to recommend that the ‘inveterate swamp’ is drained and improved but defends the ‘wet peaty moor’ as follows:

The depasturable parts of the forest, consist of a black moory soil, from eighteen inches to two feet in thickness, generally forming peat below, always highly charged with moisture, and ultimately resting upon a reddish-coloured argillaceous loam, called fox-mould, and which is also retentive of water in a very high degree. The spontaneous vegetation of this part of the forest, among many other herbs and grasses, consisted of purple melic grass, mat grass, downy oat grass, bristle-leaved bent, eye-bright, bulbous rooted rush, common termentel, smooth heath-bed straw, common bone binder, cross-leaved heath, common heath or ling (dwarf), milk-wort, dwarf dock and agrostis vulgaris in very large quantities. The disturbing of this herbage, however inferior it may appear in the eye of the refined agriculturalist, is on no account whatever to be recommended to permitted.

Vancouver goes on to describe the importance of the ‘wet peaty moors’ for grazing by sheep and cattle.

“The importance of the first description of these wastes (referring to his earlier writing on the boggy character of Dartmoor), can in no way be so fully shewn as by stating the stock feeding upon them. The Commons belonging to the parish of Widdecombe [and Buckland in the Moor] will furnish a sufficient example, when in the month of October last, there were estimated by gentlemen residing in the neighbourhood, to be no less than 14,000 sheep, besides the usual proportion of horned cattle.” p228

 

Mercer (2009) comments on these high sheep numbers suggesting that the Commons of Widecombe and Buckland today amount to 1032 ha. and therefore in 1808 were subject to a grazing pressure of over 2 sheep per ha. My own research concludes that the two Commons amount to 1940ha., nearly twice the area Mercer states. With regard to the cattle we are left unclear on their stocking density but Mercer (p292) states that Vancouver described them as standing ‘shoulder to shoulder’. These two Commons account for around 5% of Dartmoor’s Commons, so if we take an estimate that there were 10,000 cattle on the Commons of Dartmoor in the early 19th century we could speculate that there were 500 (5%) on these two Commons.

By doing this we are then able to construct some grazing pressures, measured in Livestock Unit (LSU) where 0.15 sheep equates to 1 bovine, which we can then compare to those seen in the modern era.

14,000 sheep May to Oct       =          2100 LSU

500 cattle May – Oct              =          500 LSU

Total                                                       2600 LSU

over 1940 ha of Common       =          1.34 LSU / ha / year.

Many studies have been published which seek to recommend appropriate grazing levels on upland grasslands and heaths. The majority of these have been carried out either in Scotland, the Peak District and the Pennines.

In north-east Scotland a grazing pressure of 0.2 cattle and 2.7 sheep / ha (this equates to 0.605 LSU / ha [2]) caused damage to heather communities. Additionally, with cattle at 1.2 / ha (1.2 LSU / ha) there was a 32% decline in 4 years and a decline from 80% to 5% heather cover in 10 years. With 5 sheep / ha (0.75 LSU / ha) there was a 9% decline in heather cover over 4 years (Welch 1984).

A grazing pressure of 2 sheep / ha (0.3 LSU / ha) on heather moorland and 0.37 sheep / ha (0.055 LSU / ha) on blanket bog was considered to be compatible with nature conservation objectives. Whilst 0.5 sheep / ha (0.075 LSU / ha) on heather moorland and 0.1 sheep / ha (0.015 LSU / ha) on blanket bog was required for heather to regenerate (Evans & Felton 1987).

On the face of it the grazing pressure reported by Vancouver is in excess of that which modern research found that habitat damage would occur. However Vancouver reported both cross-leaved heather and ling as being notable in these pastures.

The situation is further complicated as Vancouver also reports the following.

“From the number of sheep annually summered upon Dartmoor and Exmoor forests, the ewes and lambs of which are always brought down into the country on the approach of winter, it will be readily supposed, that a large proportion of sheep stock is always found to occupy the surrounding districts during the winter season. The greater part of these flocks, however being wethers (castrated rams), and chiefly preserved for their wool are left upon the forests during winter.” P345

The sheep in question here are White-faced Dartmoors, these sheep were being raised to produce wool and mutton. The wethers were the principle producer of wool fleeces and may have been kept for up to 6 years. The key factor in the above text is that they were being overwintered on the moor. It is widely assumed that all-year round grazing on Dartmoor did not occur until the late 19th century and the early 20th century when Scotch Black-faced sheep and the Galloway cattle arrived. It would appear that the practices of transhumance (summer grazing and winter resting) along with levancy and couchancy – the rule that determined the number of grazing stock that could be summered on the Common by reference to the capacity of the land to which the rights were associated to feed stock over the winter months, i.e. all stock on the Common in the summer had to be accommodated and fed on the farm in the winter months were already breaking down.

If we assume that that the wethers accounted for 8000 of the 14,000 sheep (‘the greater part’) then we need to add an additional 1200 LSUs in to the calculation.

14,000 sheep May to Oct       =          2100 LSU

8000 wethers Nov to Apr       =          1200 LSU

500 cattle May – Oct              =          500 LSU

Total                                                        3800 LSU

over 1940 ha of Common       =          1.96 LSU / ha / year.

Grazing pressures at these levels, according to the recent research would cause serious problems of overgrazing and habitat degradation. However this would appear not to be the case in 1808 as Vancouver goes on to report:

“The number of sheep thus summered and kept the year round upon the forest of Dartmoor, the depasturable parts of which, in a dry summer, is one of the best sheep-walks in the kingdom, is not easy to ascertain; but if any inference can be drawn from the returns made from Widdicombe and Buckland in the Moor, their numbers must necessarily be very considerable indeed. A dry summer (as just observed), is always the most favourable for these sheep walk. These afforded in the months of August and September last, flocks were more numerous, and in much higher condition, than has ever been observed by the surveyor in any other part of England, when such have not been aided by access to the enclosures or artificial food. Yet the grass of the sheep-walks upon the forest of Dartmoor, in the beginning of November was scarcely half consumed.” P346-347

Additionally Mercer (p303) quotes Vancouver who reported seeing ‘knee high grass’ on the Widecombe Commons in May. Ample grazing at the beginning of the growing season and scarcely half consumed in November.

Vancouver’s 1808 account of sheep on Dartmoor contrasts markedly with that of Robert Frazer who in 1794 published a ‘General View of the county of Devon with observations on the means of its improvement’[3]. On page 53 he states

The south and east quarter are the driest and best for sheep, and from the most accurate information I could obtain, there are not five thousand sheep kept on both these quarters. Certainly not so many on the north and west. So that if we say 10,000 sheep for the whole of Dartmore, we shall be beyond the mark. I think there are not 8,000 in the whole forest in any summer.

However, Fogwill (1954) in his essay on Pastoralism on Dartmoor stated that in Annals of Agriculture there is a footnote stating that ‘this a great error’.

It is difficult to unravel this mystery and we may never be able to do so: perhaps the gentlemen of the parish miscalculated the number of sheep; perhaps the 14,000 sheep were not solely on the Commons or perhaps the breeds of animals involved i.e. the White-faced Dartmoor sheep and the Ruby Red Devon cattle impacted less severely on the vegetation than Scotch Blackfaces and Galloways.

Or maybe, just maybe, in the time before the Industrial Revolution began, before the era of atmospheric pollution and climate change, the hill-farmers of Dartmoor had perfected a system of pastoralism which allowed them to graze the Commons with great numbers of animals without damaging the vegetation.

A mystery indeed.

[1] The entire manuscript can be downloaded here free of charge https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/General_View_of_the_Agriculture_of_the_C.html?id=BwhLAAAAYAAJ&redir_esc=y

[2] LSU is known as a livestock unit Cattle = 1LSU, Ponies = 1 LSU & Sheep = 0.15 LSU

[3] Download free of charge here https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/General_View_of_the_County_of_Devon.html?id=-H5bAAAAQAAJ

Evans S. & Felton M. (1987) Hill livestock compensatory allowances and upland management. In Bell and Bunce (1987) pp66-72.

Fogwill E. (1954) Pastoralism on Dartmoor. Transactions of the Devonshire Association 86: 89-114.

Mercer I. (2009) Dartmoor: a statement of its time. Collins. HarperCollins. London.

Welch D. (1984) Studies in the grazing of heather moorland in North-East Scotland. II. Response of heather. Journal of Ecology 21: 197-207.

A Texel Ram sells for 130,000 guineas

A Texel Ram has sold at auction for 130,000 guineas & a gimmer ewe (female sheep between 1st and 2nd shearing) for 7,500guineas!

How is this possible?

How is it sustainable?

Can someone explain?

The day after this story was announced a campaign called Love Lamb Week was launched to tackle falling lamb consumption in the UK which now stands at 4.6kg per year – see here.

I’m genuinely confused.

 

Farming Tomorrow?

On the 1st August this week a think tank, Policy Exchange, published a report entitled Farming Tomorrow: British agriculture after Brexit.  You can download the report from here.

Policy Exchange describe themselves as follows:-

‘Policy Exchange is the UK’s leading think tank. We are an educational charity whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas that will deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy. Registered charity no: 1096300.

Policy Exchange is committed to an evidence-based approach to policy development. We work in partnership with academics and other experts and commission major studies involving thorough empirical research of alternative policy outcomes. We believe that the policy experience of other countries offers important lessons for government in the UK. We also believe that government has much to learn from business and the voluntary sector.’

According to Wikipedia Policy Exchange is a British centre-right think tank, created in 2002 and based in London. It has been variously described as, “the largest, but also the most influential think tank on the right”, in the Daily Telegraph, and as, “a neo liberal lobby group funded by dark money”, in The Guardian.

Interestingly Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for the Environment was instrumental in setting up Policy Exchange in 2002 and was its first chairman. Even more interestingly Michael Gove’s recent speech on environmental policy ‘The Unfrozen Moment – delivering a green Brexit’ (download here) practically mirrors the ethos of the Environment section of the Policy Exchange document.

Gove has been more circumspect about exactly what Brexit might mean for agriculture other than saying that in the future ‘support can only be argued for against other competing public goods if the environmental benefits of that spending are clear’.

Perhaps the Policy Exchange document gives us an insight into what Farming and Food Green paper might contain?

The document contains 6  chapters and an Executive summary. In the Introduction the authors argue against a British Food Policy based on Food Security and self-sufficiency, arguing that World free trade will provide us with our needs and suggesting that a policy of self-sufficiency would lead to even greater environmental damage.

Such views are not uncontested. Jay Rayner in his 2013 book ‘A greedy man in a hungry world’ argues that with the rise of the middles classes in China, India and Indonesia many of the markets that would have traditionally supplied British supermarkets are turning their attention to these new emerging markets which will make it potentially more difficult for Britain to source its food at low prices.

Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy at City University London tweeted the following yesterday which highlights his concerns of the proposed strategy.

The Policy Exchange position certainly seems to support the views of the previous Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom when she spoke to the NFU in February this year (see here).

There is a full chapter in the report on agriculture in Britain from the ‘Corns Laws to the CAP’, of course repealing the Corns Laws in 1846 opened up tariff free trade and British agriculture acted as a free market with little government intervention, subsidy or protection. It would appear that we are heading back at least metaphorically to 1846 but on this occasion without an Empire or a navy that ruled the waves.

The final four chapters cover consumers, producers, the rural economy and the environment.

Consumers
Policy Exchange state that the most important stakeholder in food and farming is the consumer and that they want inexpensive, high quality, safe food which is available in the right quantity at the most convenient time and place.

This chapter also addresses the issue of food standards and discusses the controversies around chlorinated chicken, hormone-treated beef and Genetically Modified and genetically edited food. The authors seem to be suggesting that there is no evidence that these practices threaten human health but have been banned by the EU on the grounds of the ‘Precautionary Principle’. The Consumers chapters ends with the following two recommendations, you can make of the second one what you want!

  • After leaving the EU Customs Union, the UK should unilaterally phase out tariffs that increase consumer food prices and complicate new trade deals.
  • The Food Standards Agency should be given new powers and resources to collate, commission, and review scientific evidence on food safety and animal welfare.

Producers
This is a brutal section as it discusses the decline of British farming over the years, it takes no prisoners and offers no solace.

The chapter suggests that UK farming income in 2016 was £3.6b which included £3.1b in subsidies so actually farming only made a profit of £500m. Indeed they also suggest that between 1997 and 2007 farming profit was below the subsidy level so in effect agriculture produced a negative effect on the economy overall. The recommendations from this chapter puts much of British agriculture to the sword.

  • The UK should work to phase out direct subsidies for agricultural production and income support. This will free up Government revenue to fund other taxpayer priorities, such as the NHS.
  • Any remaining subsides should be redirected towards protection for natural and public goods, and increasing R&D to boost innovation and the sector’s long-term productivity.
  • The Government should work to identify environmentally suitable freed-up land that can be used for housing or commercial development, sharing the planning uplift with the original farmer.
  • Subsidies should be phased out gradually over a five-year period from 2020, with farmers given the option of receiving a final payment as a single one-off payment instead.
  • Seeking self-sufficiency in food should not be a goal of agricultural policy.

Rural Economy
This section challenges the accepted wisdom that agriculture is a core part of the rural economy. The authors state that in terms Gross Value Added agriculture, forestry and fishing represent just 2% of the rural economy.

The chapter begins to discuss the environment and highlights the importance of natural capital,

Conventional economic statistics only capture a limited proportion of the value created by rural areas, much of which takes the form of positive externalities. The ONS’s preliminary work on natural capital identifies as many as 29 separate mechanisms by which the natural environment can create value, including: agricultural production, timber, wind power, wildlife, air pollution removal, waste water cleaning, flood protection, scientific, and scientific and educational interactions. The recreational value of day trips alone to the natural environment was estimated to be £6.5 billion — not far below the entire GVA of agriculture.

In other words, nobody really expects areas like Dartmoor, the Lake District, or the New Forest to be highly productive from a narrow economic point of view. Greater productivity of agriculture allows it to operate in a more intensive fashion, freeing up significant land areas for managed re-wilding, increasing biodiversity, and preserving many of Britain’s most beautiful landscapes. As science writer Matt Ridley has argued:

Post-Brexit environment policy should be one of gardening: managing for a diversity of outcomes in different places. Productive farms here, deep forests there, wild moorlands elsewhere. Freed from the one-size-fits-all shackles of the EU, we should localise our policies, and host as many habitats and species as the climate will support.

The text suggests that many current agricultural workers could in effect become ‘gardeners’ tending natural capital via payments for ecosystem services.

But in a world such as this what about farming?

Here the authors argue that British agricultural should move away from its productionist past and through innovation become a world leader in AgriTech (Tim Lang and Michael Heasman in their 2015 book Food Wars call this the Life Science Integrated paradigm). This is the world of biotechnology, GM and the use of enzymes, robot driven tractors, precision drilling, fertilising and pesticide application , the use of ‘big’ data and drones. Some will be able to go down this route but not everyone …….

Here are the recommendations from the Rural economy chapter.

  • Environment: preserve and enhance the UK’s Natural Capital
  • Connectivity: enable rural workers and businesses to integrate withthe wider economy
  • Innovation: use the opportunities from Brexit to become a world leader in AgriTech

Environment
This section sets out that agriculture dominates land use and the current model of exploitation is simply unsustainable.

It goes on to talk about water pollution, air pollution and climate change, soil degradation and the impacts on biodiversity. It states that reform should focus on the ‘Payments for Ecosystem Services’ model and that this should be integrated with biodiversity offsetting. It argues that forestry and agriculture need to be much more integrated. The recommendations include:-

  • Rather than giving production subsidies to farmers under the CAP, all remaining public support should go towards public goods, such as preserving and enhancing the natural environment and the environmental and aesthetic benefits that derive from it.
  • This should be achieved using a ‘Payments for Ecosystem Services’ approach, linked to the Defra 25 Year Environment Plan and the work of the Natural Capital Committee. Payments should be available both to farms and other landowners, creating a competitive market for the provision of ecosystem services.
  • As part of Defra’s 25 Year Plan for the Environment, Government should consult on the most appropriate mechanisms for commissioning ecosystem services (including consideration of the optimal scale), and explore how they could work alongside tools such as regulation and biodiversity offsetting.
  • Develop an integrated land management policy framework, which facilitates the deeper integration of forestry and agriculture. Explore the potential of re-forestation as a cost-effective approach to mitigating carbon emissions.
  • Perverse EU rules such as the crop diversification rule should be reformed or abandoned.
  • Transpose the key environmental directives that govern the environment — notably the Water Framework Directive, and the Habitats Directives — so that there is no post-Brexit period in which no laws apply.

The report finishes as follows.

As described above, Payments for Ecosystem Services can be used to achieve a range of environmental benefits, such as carbon sequestration, improving water quality, reducing flood risk, or improving the landscape. For other goals, where valuation is harder, regulation may be more efficient. In this context, who will decide what outcomes are desired, and in which locations? Will different locations pursue different objectives? What is the approach scale to make these decisions?

As a practical example, consider the Lake District — recently identified as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The Lake District is regarded as having a landscape of great beauty, in particular its cultural landscape. The current landscape is the product of centuries of human management, in particular of upland sheep farming, which has resulted in deforestation and relatively low levels of biodiversity. In the post-Brexit farming policy framework described in this report, should this landscape be preserved as it is to maximise its cultural and heritage benefit? Or conversely should it be ‘re-wilded’, as suggested by some commentators, and returned to nature to maximise its biodiversity and wider environmental benefit?

These are the sorts of difficult decisions that will need to be made in the creation of Defra’s 25 Year Plan for the Environment.

So does this document contain the blue print for the Defra 25 Year Plans for Farming and the Environment? Of course we will have to wait and see. This neoliberal future certainly appears to offer huge opportunities for the environment but at what price to farming? The report openly talks about re-structuring the industry – this means forcing uneconomic businesses off  the land freeing it up for other uses such as housing and re-wilding.

What does it mean for Dartmoor? It would appear that the money will be there for hill-farmers but will this be for livestock production or their potential future new role as ‘gardeners’?

 Polly Toynbee, writing in the Guardian (see here) has said ‘no wonder farmers fear the Brexit wolf in sheep’s clothing. Most farmers voted leave. Now they are beginning to dread the withdrawal of EU subsidy and see their traditional protectors in the Tory party as enemies’.

The vision set out in this report shares little common ground with the NFU’s  ‘recipe’ for success post-Brexit which consisted of the following three ‘ingredients’

  • Access to the Single Market
  • Access to labour
  • A new agricultural policy which facilitated productive, progressive and profitable farming
The National Trust’s Director General has also joined in the debate saying that the ‘countryside faces damaging uncertainty unless the current level of subsidies are maintained for farmers. The Trust said affordable, high-quality food and wildlife-friendly farming can be secured for the current subsidy of £3bn a year (see here).
Finally, Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Government at Kings College London has raised the prospect of the need for a second referendum (see here)  ‘Brexit after all raises fundamental, indeed existential, issues for the future of the country. That is why the final deal needs the consent not only of parliament, but of a sovereign people’.

So much up in the air, so many lives in limbo, one person’s threat is another’s opportunity.

Lots and lots of sheep

I’ve been to the Devon County Show today – my favourite place is always the sheep marquees. Lots and lots of local and not so local breeds on show. I never cease to be amazed at the passion and dedication that goes into looking after, breeding and showing these breeds. Here are a few pictures.

This is a Devon and Cornwall Longwool – a sheep originally bred for its wool not its meat – a sheep responsible for much of the prosperity now seen in cities like Exeter in the days when wool was king.

A Whiteface Dartmoor

A Greyface Dartmoor

An Exmoor Horn

A Devon Closewool

A Scotch Blackface – the commonest sheep on Dartmoor

A Valais Blacknose – there is a sheep in there somewhere.

A Border Leicester – amazing ears!

A Bluefaced Leicester

A Black Hebridean Sheep – an ancient breed but rather camera shy.

A Shetland Sheep

A Jacob Sheep

The next three types of sheep are recent breeds, bred specifically for their meat production and originating from Holland and Belgium.

This is a Texel

I don’t think he will take any nonsense

This is a Blue Texel

And this is a Beltex – his legs hardly look strong enough to support his body!

As is this one

Sadly though no multi-horned Manx Loaghtan….

This is a great book which tells the history of sheep in Britain and how that made the country rich

The Forgotten Farm Worker

In the Forum at the University of Exeter there is, at the moment,  a display of posters detailing PhDs that are currently being researched at the University. This one, ‘The Forgotten Farm Worker’ details the work of my colleague in the LEEP Institute, Caroline Nye.

Succinct and beautifully designed, complete with contractor, sun, clouds, rain, potatoes, carrots and a worm!

Worth reading the details of the research and the findings (double click on the image to enlarge) – very pertinent in today’s political climate