Memorandum submitted by Lloyd Maunder
Ltd (X01)
1. Poultry farmers receive no financial
support from Government, yet we have imposed upon us legislation,
which costs money to implement. This legislation is mainly designed
to improve the environment and hence benefit the general population
yet we cannot get any increases in payment for our product to
offset these costs. Failure to achieve improved prices for an
enriched environment, higher welfare or an improved product is
entirely due to the never ending downward financial pressure by
supermarkets and the food sector, including government contracts,
on our product. Combating this pressure is completely outside
the control of the farmer who remains a pawn in the production
chain.
2. Welfare standards are high in the UK
but those same standards are not applied elsewhere, including
some of our EU colleagues, yet imports from both regulated and
unregulated countries continue to enter the UK. Although these
chicken mainly enter the food service industry there is no requirement
to label the source of origin of the chicken and hence the consumer
may well be under the impression it is of UK origin.
3. The recent cases of banned antibiotics
appearing in poultry meat or residues of approved antibiotics
being detected from imports does little to enhance the image of
UK produced chicken. Yet again this highlights the differences
in standards to which the UK is correctly subjected but to which
our competitors escape. The UK industry expects no less than even
standards but at farm level it appears that this is not the case.
4. The introduction of the Climate Change
Levy has not been applied equally to all sectors of agriculture
and this is simply unfair. These regulations have resulted in
either a reduction in bird welfare due to energy savings or to
increased costs when energy has not been reduced and increased
charges apply. The cost of installing new energy saving equipment
or improved insulation exceeds the benefits of low energy costs.
Would this not be an area for Government support if it is serious
about energy reductions?
5. The economic effect of the IPPC regulations
will emerge when the level of interpretation is fully known. However
the regulations will increase costs to the larger, and more efficient
farms, as well as being very time. The inter-link between energy
use, welfare and environmental pollution is very apparent to farmers
yet is not understood by the legislators, so we have an expensive
and confused picture. The charges for registration and subsequent
inspection bear no relationship to the actual work involved and
as I understand are not being charged in other EU States. They
appear to be a profit centre for the EA.
6. The NVZ areas have increased and instead
of small areas being affected a large part of the country is now
covered. Whilst fully accepting the need for the control measures,
the problems of how we dispose of "natural" fertiliser
has not been addressed. In the South West it has not been financially
viable to build litter burning power stations and so the only
route of litter disposal is to land. As we are a livestock area
we are limited in the amount of area available for spreading and
the times of the year when application can take place. The problem
has been identified but the economic solution has not been brought
forward by the EA or Government.
7. The UK is an importer of chicken meat,
(see DEFRAs own figures), yet Local Authorities appear to have
a pathological hatred of any form of poultry farming, especially
in areas of outstanding natural beauty, some of these areas have
been designated as such with very dubious claims. The cost and
difficulty of obtaining planning permission rules out many farmers
wishing to expand or improve their farms, yet on my travels in
the EU and elsewhere development is welcomed. Given the correct
help from Government we could become more self sufficient in chicken
production and in so doing bring income into rural areas thus
simultaneously giving our cereal farmers an expanded market for
corn.
8. The apparent inability to redevelop old
poultry sites to other brown field use or to allow other non agriculture
uses means that we have an aging house problem which is not conducive
to the requirements of new legislation of bird welfare.
9. We have largely lost our pig industry
through lack of Government support, legislation, uneven welfare
standards and price pressure caused by imports. We must not loose
our poultry industry via the same route, without a poultry industry
we have a far lower need for arable farming and so our accepted
landscape will disappear leaving in its place playground farms,
hobby farmers and set aside.
10. The poultry industry has worked hard
to reduce the salmonella level within its meat strain flocks,
yet we allow into the country chicken meat containing S. enteriditis
and S Java. If the Government treats public health seriously why
does this obvious source of infection be allowed to continue?
11. Adopting the Animal By-Products Regulations
with the same severity to poultry carcase disposal as it does
to red meat species demonstrates still further the differences
in approach between the sectors. The dairy and beef industry are
exempt from IPPC for no apparent reason yet the poultry industry
is swept up in the Animal By-Products Regulations. If there is
to be a national free of charge collection service for larger
animals will this also apply to poultry?
12. The recent television programmes have
highlighted the water content of some imported chicken meat. Why
does existing legislation not be enacted to prevent this deception.
One has to ask if it were a UK plant conducting this practice
would it be allowed to continue.
13. As a chicken producer I have to question
if legislation is being applied evenly and fairly. Is it cost
effective to the consumer, the environment, and to the chicken?
Is the writer of legislation producing it faster than the regulators
can enact it, or the farmers comply with it?
Lloyd Maunder Ltd
3 April 2003
| 
