Farming

Being green after Brexit

Our local farmer prepares ground as part of a wildlife biodiversity programme. Image © Copyright BridgeNature.org 2017.

As the British government prepares to invoke Article 50 in order for us to leave the EU, a report by the all party Environmental Audit Committee expresses a number of concerns about the future of our wild and farmed landscapes and the animal life which inhabits them, and makes some significant recommendations to ensure that all continue to receive the protection they need if they are to prosper in the future.

Our natural environment stands in a precarious situation: many of the protections which currently safeguard it were provided by European laws which will be lost at the point of Brexit. One example is The Birds and Habitats Directives, which “form the cornerstone of Europe’s legislation on nature conservation”. They will cease to have authority when we leave the EU and the effect on our wildlife could be devastating. Other protection laws may be ignored, superceded or allowed to lapse over time.

For farmers, who undertake the practical tasks of managing huge swathes of the British countryside, the question of grants is paramount. Many cannot earn a living from farming, particularly if they make extra efforts to be environmentally compliant in the way they work, and consequently they need EU subsidies to produce the food which they deliver to the market. Such is the imbalance between supermarket prices and the costs of production. Something will need to be done to ensure that the UK’s agricultural industry survives after Brexit.

Our current Conservative government made a manifesto commitment to “be the first generation to leave our environment in a better state than they found it”. In order to do this, when we leave the EU’s jurisdiction they must provide an equivalent or better level of protection for our environment and wildlife than existed while we were members. To address these issues the Environmental Audit Committee makes seven recommendations which we summarise here (1).

1. The government must legislate with a new Environmental Protection Act which offers similar or greater environmental protections than EU legislation.

2. The government must make a full assessment of the resources necessary to replace existing EU environmental funding to ensure that farming remains viable and animal welfare, food security and food safety are protected.

3. The government must recognise the interdependence of its two forthcoming 25 year plans for A. the natural environment and B. food, farming and fisheries. Consultation on these should inform the Brexit negotiating strategy.

4. Brexit negotiations must address international issues and trade arrangements with regard for how they will affect the UK’s natural environment and agriculture.

5. Before Article 50 is triggered the government should identify the legislation guaranteed to protect our environment when we leave the EU and guarantee that it will not trade away environmental and animal welfare protections as part of negotiations to leave or in future trade deals.

6. Before Britain leaves the EU the government must establish the environmental objectives and governance model of any future land management payments {ie: grants and subsidies} so that they are linked to public goods {ie: environmental protection} rather than just providing income support to farmers (2).

7. Defra must ensure that funding is allocated fairly across the nations of the UK with environmental standards required.

(1) This list provides a lay summary only. For full details of the Environmental Audit Committee’s report see: The Future of the Natural Environment after the EU Referendum: sixth report of session 2016-17.

(2) {…} denotes editorial insertions.

Badgers, blame and bovine TB

Badger, secret location, East Kent. The government’s badger cull has not reached Kent… yet! Image © Copyright BridgeNature.org 2016.

Bovine TB (b:TB or cattle tuberculosis) is a menace on the farm. If cattle contract it they must be slaughtered. For farmers who have spent many years breeding a herd this is a disaster, particularly as the disease tends to spread amongst animals in close proximity, meaning that sometimes an entire herd has to be destroyed.

For decades farmers, vets and environmentalists have argued about what causes the spread of bTB. Environmentalists say modern farming methods are to blame, insisting cattle aren’t checked properly before being transported to farms across the country. Others, including many farmers and the vets who earn a living treating their cattle, say badgers, which are known carriers of the disease, pass it on to livestock.

In recent years two hugely important trials have occurred out in the fields in the west of Britain. In a few English counties, a highly controversial government backed cull has attempted to kill vast numbers of badgers to see if bTB in cattle is reduced. About 15,000 have been killed so far and the pro cull lobby claims success, but many leading scientists and The Wildlife Trusts, suggest there is no basis for suggesting anything of the sort. In a joint statement the Badger Trust, Born Free Foundation, the RSPCA, and The Humane Society International make their view clear:

“there is no evidence that the current culls are reducing bovine TB in cattle” (1).

One surprising figure from an earlier test is that 83% of badgers culled in government trials 2002-2005 tested TB free” (2), yet in the culls of recent years the government has refused to allow testing of culled badgers to check if they actually had bTB. Furthermore, a panel of experts appointed by the government to assess the validity of the English badger cull was disbanded when they reported that the cull was both cruel and ineffective.

Meanwhile in Wales, where a cull was ruled out, a so called IAA Vaccination Programme has been vaccinating hundreds of Badgers against Bovine TB, so that they don’t get it and therefore can’t spread it to cattle. In tandem a more stringent bTB testing programme has been carried out in Welsh cattle herds.

Between July 2015 and July 2016 new bTB incidences in Welsh cattle fell by 19% (2) although more incidences were found in herds known to have had previous bTB infections. This suggests overall the two level programme is working: less herds are being infected, and better testing is finding more of the cattle which already have bTB. Vaccination is cheaper too, at about £700 per badger (3), while the cull is costing about £5-7,000 per badger(4). Nevertheless many Welsh farmers are insisting they want an English style badger cull. Such a call would seem to conflict with the scientific evidence.

To pass the disease directly to a cow, an infected badger would need to come within 1.5 metres of it, but new research by Prof Rosie Woodroffe and experts at the Zoological Society of London (5), in which they tracked 65,000 badger and cattle movements, shows that rather than coming into close contact with cattle, badgers actually avoid them. Only once in the entire study did a badger come within 10 metres of a cow, but most preferred to stay 50 metres away or more.

These new studies suggest that environmental factors may play a much more important role in bTB infections than has been realised. “The current tests for bTB in cattle are only 20-50% effective and one fifth of all bTB infections are only discovered when the animals go to slaughter” (6). These cattle are therefore likely to have been infecting pasture land, farmyards and a variety of common animals including hedgehogs, mice, moles, rats, sheep, goats, slugs and worms long before the disease was detected. Even when a bTb infection is found early in a cattle herd, the slurry and manure from these animals is not regarded as contaminated and often gets spread all over the farm. Professor Alastair MacMillan, ex Defra vet and Veterinary Adviser to the Humane Society International has advised:

The suggestion by some that TB is spread by frequent nose-to-nose contact between badgers and cattle has now been completely dismissed. It is much more likely that contamination by cattle of fields and yards by [TB bacteria] is the cause of repeated TB herd breakdownsIt’s clear that the government must divert the substantial resources being used needlessly to cull badgers and instead improve farmer education and biosecurity on farms”(7).

So, why is there a continued insistence amongst farmers and some members of the governmental scientific community that badgers are always to blame? Badgers are an easy target: they, like many wild animals, have been persecuted by cruel country folk for centuries, not because they cause any real harm, but because it’s a traditional ‘country sport’ to kill them. Could it be the very same thugs who are getting paid to kill badgers in the cull?

Britain’s farming industry is vital, it feeds the nation, it must succeed; but whatever the definitive cause of the spread of bTB turns out to be, we need an ethical, sustainable farming industry that works in harmony with the land, local communities and wildlife. The mass slaughter of thousands of healthy, uninfected badgers surely cannot be seen as a logical, ethical and humane solution to what is essentially a modern farming problem.

(1) Badger Trust, Born Free Foundation, RSPCA, Humane Society International, joint submission to DEFRA consultation, January 2017.
(2) Badger Trust figure
(3) Figure quoted by Caroline Lucas MP, Hansard 07 September 2016, Volume 614.
(4) Initial figure: £7,000, Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, June 2007; revised figure: £5,000, Caroline Lucas MP, Hansard 07 September 2016, Volume 614.
(5) Prof. R. Woodroffe, Ecology Letters, 4 Aug 2016,: Badgers prefer cattle pasture but avoid cattle: implications for bovine tuberculosis control
(6) Dr Monaghan MP. Sponsor of Commons EDM on Badger Cull. Hansard 07 September 2016, Volume 614.
(7) Quoted in The Guardian, Friday 5 August 2016.

The Sussex in Kent

Sussex cattle, Bourne Park, Bishopsbourne, October 2016. Their 'mahogany red' colour glows in the evening sunlight. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016.

Sussex cattle, Bourne Park, Bishopsbourne, October 2016. Their ‘mahogany red’ colour glows in the evening sunlight. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016.

If, in the last six months or more, you have taken a stroll along Bourne Park Road heading from Bridge towards Bishopsbourne, you may have noticed some reddish coloured cattle in a field off to the right between the road and the Nailbourne. These are Sussex cattle, one of the most famous and reputable breeds of cattle in the world: their colour is described historically as mahogany red.

The Sussex originated on the Weald of Sussex, Surrey and Kent and it is directly descended from a breed of cattle which roamed in Anderida, the huge forest which stretched over those counties before and at the time of the Norman conquest in 1066. These cattle were of course a source of food, but through the centuries as they were farmed and bred they became notable also as a draught breed for ploughing and pulling carts and they were used extensively for that purpose. Today we may think of the horse as the primary working animal of our ancient past, but this is not so, for centuries it was the ox, and the ox of choice would, without doubt, have been a Sussex. On the Weald, the steep terrain meant that the use of oxen as the main draught animal continued much longer than in some other parts of the country. In his travelogue ‘A Tour of Great Britain’ written in 1724, Daniel Defoe tells us of an old lady on the Weald being driven to church in a carriage hauled by six Sussex oxen.

Sussex cattle, showing characteristic colour and shape with higher rear end than shoulders and a white switch to the tail. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016.

Sussex cattle, showing characteristic colour and shape with higher rear end than shoulders and a white switch to the tail. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016.

We do not think of the Kent and Sussex Weald as a forest area today because the woodland was felled in the early 18th century to provide timber for iron manufacturing during the industrial revolution. Sussex oxen were used as draught animals working in the forest and, to give an idea of the numbers of animals involved, Defoe, who was travelling through the area at the time, records teams of 22 Sussex oxen pulling each lumber cart.

The escarpments of the Weald meant that, once the forest had gone, large tracts of the land were not suitable for ploughing, so much of it was left as pasture. The Sussex continued to be prominent, primarily for beef production, although records show that in some parts of the Weald they were still used to haul ploughs right into the early 20th century.

In the last few days the Sussex cattle have been moved out of the field off Bourne Park Road; we do not know where they have gone to, although being beef cattle, we do know their ultimate fate.

A harvest of Hops

Bringing in the hop harvest, Bishopsbourne 2016. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016.

Bringing in the hop harvest, Bishopsbourne 2016. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016.

This week was harvesting week at the Hop farm near Flint Cottages. While in the past this was an event which would have seen hundreds of people employed in many of the fields around the area, today there just remains this one Hop farm of about 10 acres in our locality. It is recorded that Hop growing in Kent began in the area between Canterbury, Bishopsbourne and Lower Hardres so this is possibly one of the oldest Hop fields in the county. The harvesting was achieved by the hard work of a small group of people working by hand from the back of a tractor and trailer.

Gathering the hop harvest, Bishopsbourne 2016. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016.

Gathering the hop harvest, Bishopsbourne 2016. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016.

Hops were introduced to Britain by the Romans, not as an ingredient of beer, but as a supply of Hop shoots which were, and still are, considered a culinary delicacy. Hop farming for beer making began in earnest in Kent in the 1520s to provide the ingredients (only the Hop flowers are used) for a burgeoning beer industry and, as it turned out, the ‘terroir’ (conditions of land and climate) of the area proved perfect for the crop. By the late 1600s Hop growing had become a major agricultural activity in this county and the industry continued to grow until it reached its peak in the late 1800s. Thus, for over 300 years, vast numbers of tall stands of Hops growing on wired poles gave much of Kent’s agricultural landscape a unique and distinctive appearance. However, since its peak, changes in drinking habits, global free trade and taxes on alcohol have caused Hop growing in Kent and the rest of Britain to dwindle to a fraction of its former size.

Hop flowers, Bishopsbourne, Sept. 2016. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016.

Hop flowers, Bishopsbourne, Sept. 2016. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016.

Although some of the shoots from our Bishopsbourne Hops are served in London’s up-market restaurants, most of the flowers are exported to America for specialist beer brewing. Varieties to be seen growing on the farm include ‘Challenger’ and the world famous ‘East Kent Goldings’ variety which was developed from the Canterbury Whitebine Hop in the late 1700s. We understand the farm won first prize for their own crop of East Kent Goldings at the English National Hop Competition in 2011 and we wish them continued success!

 

Land of plenty

'Land of plenty' Sheep in Bourne Park, June 2016. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org

‘Land of plenty’ Sheep in Bourne Park, June 2016. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org

As we stand a moment on the downs and contemplate the beauty of our Nailbourne Valley, shall we pause to spare a thought for those poor refugees, or economic migrants if you will, who strive to steal into this country, at any cost, from the ruined and war torn countries of the Middle East and far beyond? Let us consider the horror of their situation and wonder what those who make it across the white cliff border line of Dover, by fair means or foul, would think of this rural idyll.

To them every aspect of our local scenery must suggest a land of wealth; a lush green paradise dotted with farms and elegant country homes, the stately manors of the rich. We have gentle pasture land in green, buttercups in yellow, forget-me-nots in blue and a tangled kindle of woodland full of timber. We have a patchwork of fields full of crops: wheat for making bread, and golden barley, which, in ancient times, was more the favourite in the Middle East. We have fields of field beans which we feed to our livestock or export for staple dishes right across North Africa and the deserts beyond, and we have orchards filled with row upon row of trees laden with delicious fruits. For those genteel garden parties on our English summer lawns we have plastic tunnels so full of strawberries that we cannot begin to count them, and we have lines of hops for making beer: the very essence of the English pub, indolent leisure and the westerners’ love for having a good time.

Flocks of fattened sheep meander lazily across grassed chalky downs, and muscled beef cows chew the juicy cud in pleasant water meadows under the dappled shade of ancient ash and oak. We have such store of food, that even the fishes in our lakes and the wild birds like the little egret, the honking greylag goose, and the white mute swan, so good for eating, are left to live their lives in peace and plump prosperity.

And think upon those suffering souls in other parts who walk for miles each day to pull some dirty water from a rusting pump, that they may drink or wash their children: how would they view the crystal water of our little trickling stream? What music would they hear in its soft chatter?

How perfect must our own lives seem to those who look with hungry eyes upon our happy valley, in this, our land of plenty.

Sidney Cooper’s cows

Cattle in the Nailbourne. July/August 2014. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016.

Cattle in the Nailbourne. July/August 2014. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016.

The recent sunny weather has, at times, made it rather hot for walking about in the fields, but one way of cooling down is to have a paddle in the Nailbourne as it flows through the meadows. The picture above, taken this same week in the summer of 2014, shows our local cows paddling near the pond. Watching cattle in our dreamy local landscape, some of us may be reminded of the paintings of Thomas Sidney Cooper.

Sidney Cooper, as he become known, was a local lad, born in Canterbury in 1803. After showing promise as a youngster with his paintings and drawings from nature in the local area, he studied at the Royal Academy in London. He became famous for what were at the time considered truthful, realistic pictures of cattle and sheep and this reputation earned him the nickname ‘Cow Cooper’, an epithet of which he may possibly not have been particularly proud; although he became very successful in his field, so it apparently did him no great harm.

It is well recorded that he painted farm animals within the Canterbury District, particularly along the Great Stour, and it is not too far fetched to imagine that he may also have visited Bridge with his paints and his canvas and an old wooden easel. However, despite his prowess at painting animals, Sidney often called in an associate called Frederick Richard Lee to paint the landscape within which his animals were set. This scenery was often of a rather ethereal and romantic nature, in contrast to the supposed truth of Cooper’s portrayal of the animals themselves.

In Canterbury, Cooper set up a small art school which was known as the Canterbury Sidney Cooper School of Art. His great nephew William Sidney Cooper attended the school and followed the same path painting farm animals and landscapes, also with great success. Another of the school’s students was a certain Mary Tourtel who became famous for her stories of Rupert Bear.

Many of Sidney Cooper’s paintings of cows and sheep are now owned by the Tate Gallery and the Victoria and Albert Museum, but the largest collection is in the Beaney Institute in Canterbury.

The Kentish Apricot

Apricots growing in the Bridge area, July 2016. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016.

Apricots growing in the Bridge area, July 2016. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016.

This month thousands of Apricots have been ripening on trees in the Bridge area. That may come as a surprise to many people but, ironically, even more so to those who are most knowledgeable about fruit growing, because for centuries it has been considered virtually impossible to grow Apricots commercially in Britain. A few gardeners have managed to grow them as a novelty in special conditions, but generally our summers were considered too wet, our winters too variable and our spring frosts too unpredictable for growing these demanding fruits on a large scale. The trees flower very early in spring, so the risk of just one late frost destroying an entire crop was too high for Apricots to be a viable option for British fruit growers.

However, in recent years all this has changed as new cultivars have been developed specially to suit the British climate. Today Apricots are grown in abundance on various farms across Kent, including one within Bridge parish. Apricots plucked fresh from the tree provide a delicious and entirely different taste experience from the bland supermarket imports we British are used to, and our new home grown varieties are now considered amongst the tastiest to be found anywhere. Additionally they are rich in vitamins A and C together with potassium, copper and fibre. Surprisingly, Apricot kernels are often used on the continent to supplement almond flavouring, typically in Amaretti biscuits and the well known liqueur Amaretto.

Tradition has it that the Apricot comes from Armenia, a small country to the East of Turkey (the Apricot’s Latin name Prunus Armeniaca actually means ‘Armenian Plum’), but historians dispute this, arguing that evidence shows the fruit has been in cultivation in China, India and Persia since ancient times.

An Apricot tree laden with fruit is a beautiful thing to see in its own right and it is a delight to have these new exotic immigrants in our traditional fruit growing landscape, but they are still a relatively rare and valuable crop, so we do not disclose their location. Those who may think to go in search of them should be advised that they fruit early and this year’s harvest has already been picked.

Bringing in the Turnip harvest

Turnip seed pods awaiting harvesting. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016

Turnip seed pods awaiting harvesting. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016

As regular readers will know, for the last few months there has been a large crop of Turnips growing in two fields between Bridge and Patrixbourne. These Turnips have been left deliberately to go to flower then to seed so that the seeds themselves can be harvested and sold on to other farmers wishing to grow Turnips for animal feed or sale at market. Since each individual plant produces many seeds, a Turnip seed crop like this is quite a rare thing to see.

A combine harvester working to bring in the Turnip seed crop off Patrixbourne Road, Bridge. 11 July 2016. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016

A combine harvester working to bring in the Turnip seed crop off Patrixbourne Road, Bridge. 11 July 2016. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016

More rare still is the sight of a combine harvester working in the fields a month or so before most of the cereal crops are ready for harvesting, but this is what we saw this week as the seeds were being gathered.

Harvesting the Turnip seed crop off Patrixbourne Road, Bridge. 11 July 2016. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016

Harvesting the Turnip seed crop off Patrixbourne Road, Bridge. 11 July 2016. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016

The harvester used was a German hi-tech version of the combine harvester first invented by an American called Hiram Moore in 1835. His machine, intended primarily for wheat, needed 20 horses to pull it. Modern harvesters are self-powered, quick, and adaptable to a variety of cereal and seed crops. As the vehicle rolls over the field, the crop is cut and pulled inside the body of the machine where it is ‘threshed’ and ‘winnowed’ to separate the seed (or grain in the case of wheat and barley) from the stems and the husks (chaff) which are expelled in clouds of dust from the rear back onto the stalky Turnips which remain untouched in the soil. These are now unfit to eat but, in olden times, such remnants might have been picked up by ‘gleaners’, poor people who walked the fields looking for leftovers after the harvest.

Turnip remnants left in the field. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016

Turnip remnants left in the field. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016

The Turnip seeds will be sold on to a wholesaler who will in turn sell them at a price of about £6 or £7 per Kilo, should any of our readers fancy a garden full of Stubble Turnips.

The blue flowered Flax

Flax growing in fields between Bridge and Kingston. July 2016. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016

The blue flowers of Flax. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016

Currently blooming in fields between Bishopsbourne and Kingston is the beautiful blue flowered crop we know as Flax. This is a versatile and culturally important plant with an extraordinarily long history of use by humanity. Within its stems the Flax plant has soft strong fibres resembling strands of blond hair (hence the description ‘flaxen haired’) which can be woven into rope, fabrics or the textile linen. Earliest traces of Flax being used in Eastern Europe to make linen go back for 30,000 years, and there is clear evidence that it was in widespread use in China and Egypt 5,000 years ago. The Roman armies used linen made from Flax to make the sails for their warships, and in more modern times Irish linen (which was the best) was used as the skin for aircraft such as the Sopwith Camel in WW1 and for control surfaces such as rudders and ailerons on aeroplanes including the Lancaster bomber, the Hurricane and the Spitfire in WW2. From earlier times and far into the late twentieth century, linen was also used for flour sacks, wall-coverings, bed sheets, underwear and even banknotes, but such use has faded as cotton and man-made fabrics have become more popular.

However, this change in fashion tastes and technology has not marked the end for Flax, for it is also the source of Flaxseed oil, which has been used for thousands of years in cooking, and more recently as a dietary supplement because of its high Omega 3 fatty acid content. Under another guise, Flax oil of a different variety is known more commonly as Linseed oil and is used as an additive for oil-based paints and as a highly effective wood preservative. The waste material from all this manufacturing makes a good feed for livestock.

By any standards Flax has proved itself an incredibly useful commercial plant over thousands of years, but some people love it just for its flowers: it is widely planted in domestic gardens, simply for the beauty of its blue.

Losing the farm

A vital crop: wheat growing in Bishopsbourne 2014. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016

A vital crop: wheat growing in Bishopsbourne 2014. Image © copyright BridgeNature.org 2016

Often, while discussing the loss of farmland to urban development, we hear the argument
“People need houses, and there is still plenty of farmland left.” Yet is there? The total of rural land lost to development between 1945-1990 was 2,722 square miles (1), with a further 432 square miles lost between 2001-9 (2). The government is now embarking on a massive house building programme to catch up with housing need. Much of this development will be on greenfield land, but how much farmland can we afford to lose?

As things stand, nearly 75% of the land in the United Kingdom is currently in use for agriculture(3): that proportion may sound like quite a lot, but the figure includes wild areas of sparse hillside sheep grazing which aren’t much use for growing anything and land which can only be used to grow certain limited types of crops. So how much farmland do we really need, and is what remains enough? Is there some kind of measure upon which we can all agree?

Traditionally this question has been about the provision of food (we are currently nominally 60% self-sufficient), but another factor which will increasingly change the very nature of the issue is the growth of the renewable fuel industry, which includes wind farms, solar farms and biofuels (growing crops like wood and beet for fuel). Renewable fuel is now seen as an important strategic and environmentally friendly industry which reduces our need for imported fossil fuels, and it must be factored into any considerations we make about land use.

One measure might be to assume that the quantity of farmland which should remain is the amount which is necessary to fully provide for our population using the technology that we currently possess. Keeping within this limit would, in theory, allow us to be food and fuel self-sufficient without any need to rely on supplies from other countries. However, this is over simplistic and doesn’t take into account consumer choice, production costs, the risks of bad weather and crop failure, and the economic benefits of modern international trade. It is, quite literally, not a good idea to keep all your eggs in one basket. In any case, it is unlikely that we actually have enough farmland left to feed ourselves and be self-sufficient in renewable fuels at this point in time. Energy self-sufficiency using farmed biofuels in conjunction with solar power, windmills and wave generators may eventually be possible in the future, but they all need technological improvement to be economically efficient and massive capital investment programmes to put them in place.

Using the arguments in favour of international trade, another suggestion might be that it really doesn’t matter how much farmland we lose, as long as what we replace it with generates enough income for us to buy our food and fuel elsewhere, perhaps from other less industrialised countries with more land, better weather and lower wages. However, this policy could leave our country woefully vulnerable in the event of a massive increase in transportation costs, war, or some kind of natural disaster in the countries that supplied us, and leave our countryside and valuable farming industry devastated beyond recovery. Furthermore it would be a policy which would change our national landscape, character and manufacturing economy for ever:

“UK agriculture provides 62% of the food we eat. It is the bedrock of the UK’s food industry, which is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector.”(4)

The real answer is that we need to find a balance somewhere between the extremes, a balance which keeps our food and fuel supplies relatively stable, free of geopolitical turmoil and economically viable. This can be best achieved by outsourcing from a broad base of international suppliers while producing a substantial quantity of food and renewable fuels ourselves. In addition we must keep a close eye on the health of our own farming industry to ensure that it remains prosperous and economically competitive with other farms around the world. We must not lose so much farmland that this difficult balance is upset and we find ourselves overly reliant on outside suppliers for our food and fuel.

However, a report called ‘The Best Use of UK Agricultural Land’ (2014) from the University of Cambridge working with the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) and companies including Asda, Sainsbury’s and Nestle, concluded that a combination of our growing population and a confused policy of land use mean that we could be heading for a farmland shortage of 7 million hectares (27,000 square miles) by 2030 (5). This is almost the size of Scotland! Much of the land deficit may, in theory, be negated by new efficiencies in crop production, multi-function fields and reduced food waste, potentially bringing the shortfall down to 2 million hectares (7,700 square miles), but this still amounts to an area larger than North Yorkshire, Cornwall and Devon combined.

The study has included within it an assumed level of housing development for an increased population, but in addition, the report’s leading author Andrew Montague-Fuller commented that:

“There is a danger that the future farming landscape of Britain might not be compatible with the country’s needs. We may well find that there’s a large amount of the land growing biofuels, has solar panels and wind farms on it, when actually we need more land put aside for the food needs of our growing population.” (5)

The conclusions of this study would appear to suggest that we are at a critical point for the future of our farmland. If we continue to build on greenfield land and use it for fuel production at the currently planned rate, by 2030 we will have lost too much farmland for our future food needs. Even dramatic improvements in farming efficiency will not solve the problem. Surely it is now imperative to prioritise building development onto brownfield land and direct the placement of solar and wind power generation equipment onto industrial premises and wasted space. We must protect the ‘Best, Most Versatile’ (BMV) food crop producing farmland that still remains, and we must manage it very carefully for the future.

This article uses source material taken under Creative Commons Licence from a Cambridge University Study (See 5 below). In compliance with the terms of that licence we release our own copyright restrictions on this article.

Reference sources:
(1) http://www.accesstoland.eu/Background-Land
(2) Department for Communities and Local Government 2011.
(3)
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/user-guidance/well…/landuse-in-the-uk.pdf
(4) National Farmers’ Union report on EU. 697-15TL-EU-Report-v12-02-11-2015-DIGITAL
(5)
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/two-million-hectare-shortfall-in-uk-land-possible-by-2030-study-find