Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 67
returns from the market coupled to new income streams from diversified income sources. In the context of
concerns about food security, interest in food authenticity and “food miles” coupled with climate change,
we are convinced that the agricultural market place will provide a growing proportion of upland incomes
especially.
However increasing “agricultural” returns require a redoubled focus on production eYciency—an eVort
that EBLEX should be well placed to support via its recently published sector roadmaps and knowledge
transfer initiatives. We believe that these programmes (coupled to activity channelled through the RDPE
axis 1 support) should enable more upland farms to become less reliant on Single Payment Scheme and more
resilient to economic and agricultural challenge. This requires that farms can evaluate their competitive
position, access novel and innovative farming techniques, collaborate as producers to cooperatively market
food production within and beyond the processing chain; have available broad but appropriate range of
income streams (ie diversification and conservation agreements).
Can hill farming businesses respond to market signals as lowland farms respond?
Upland farmers need strong business skills and entrepreneurial outlooks coupled with knowledge of the
agronomic limitations of their farm. Those that are seeking to grow their business, perhaps as part of a
succession strategy, have particular need to seek greater eYciencies, cut costs, diversify and maximise the
income from their livestock enterprises. However, livestock farming does not provide the flexibility that
characterises cropping farms, it would be a mistake to treat both alike. Production cycles are considerably
longer (up to three years for finished cattle) which means swift responses to market signals are impossible
while the land is less productive with greater restrictions on cropping choice and growing season.
Our experience suggests that farmland is also less frequently exchanged meaning that physically growing
a holding with contiguous parcels of land and so spreading fixed costs is problematic. (Cropping farms do
not require daily access to growing crops for husbandry or feeding, so such farms able to exploit more
disparate patterns of farming). Physical separation of land can make husbandry more diYcult and certainly
adds to regulatory concerns (movement of livestock). Extending holdings also overlooks the character of
livestock farming which can continue on a low output/low level of return with diversification/oV farm
income subsidising the “livestock” business—so the opportunity to enlarge holdings is much lower.
Can upland farms extensify their management and inputs?
In principle more extensive herd management should reduce unit costs of production; but extensive
management techniques can not imply a reduction on handling and animal welfare standards. All livestock
farmers, including those in the uplands, are bound to legislative codes of good practice for welfare, which
includes ensuring that at critical times (eg in winter for feeding and spring for lambing) regularly supervision
is required. We doubt that the public would tolerate extensive farming of the uplands if this means semiferal
flocks and “ranched” cattle herds. Indeed we perceive that environmental outcomes desired by Defra
and Natural England require increased shepherding to ensure appropriate grazing across open moorlands
and commons to achieve optimal habitat condition. In the absence of fences in such areas, shepherding of
the right stock at the right times in the right locations is the only option.
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before
00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011
In common with lowland farms those in the uplands are already using contractors to reduce cost of
permanent staV and equipment, such as for dipping or shearing. However, there is little opportunity to
contract out work for core business of day-to-day livestock husbandry. This is not to say that some are not
collaborating with neighbours to share resources, indeed it is customary practice for neighbouring farms to
“gather” a moorland or common. Given appropriate support and facilitation additional activities can be
undertaken collaboratively, such as training, promotion and marketing of accommodation, collaborative
input purchase or knowledge transfer.
In our experience cooperation, especially involving commons, requires locally respected and independent
mediators or facilitators to bring the variety of interested parties to the table. Building business trust and
consensus for change, even where the outcome appears attractive to third parties, can be a time consuming.
A frequent blockage to building consensus is the sharing of costs and benefits—while “win-wins” are
attractive to all, more frequently gains are not evenly shared or even unattainable for farmers. For example,
the “re-introduction” of rare breeds for environmental reasons may result in a swift outcome for habitat
recovery but will require livestock keepers to establish new market outlets and delayed or reduced market
returns reflecting the finishing condition of such breeds.
December 2010