SO, who is driving the move to Whole Life Farm Assurance for beef in place of the current 90-day residency period?

A cynical viewpoint would say that it is the “Red Tractor” hierarchy looking to supplement their revenue from an increased membership, by forcing all cattle rearers into their system.

A more realistic assumption points to the major supermarkets looking to align beef with poultry and pigs, and wanting to defend their position if there is another food scare.

Because they control 70 per cent of the beef market, they have chosen cattle rearers, with a statement that there are no plans to farm assure sheep for the whole of their life.

This could be because 50 per cent of sheep are exported or used in the halal trade, neither of which have any interest in Farm Assurance.

It is my belief that timing could not be worse for throwing extra cost on the cattle industry.

It is also clear that the middle management of the major supermarkets has still not realised that competition from the discount retailers means streamlining all costs in the supply chain – not adding to them.

Current Red Tractor Farm Assured Beef is British, has obeyed all veterinary withdrawal periods and is fully traceable throughout its life. It has been subject to a host of existing legislation on welfare and management. Whole Lfe Farm assurance will not change this.

The NFU conference last week broadly supported Whole Life Farm Assurance, but still waits to know how it will work in practice.

The Livestock Auctioneers Association, which I chair, has called for a full database to track whether an animal has been on a Farm Assured farm for its life.

With this in place, if there is a premium for Whole Life Farm Assured Beef, farmers in Ryedale will accept the extra costs, as they have for Aberdeen Angus beef, for example. This will achieve everyone’s objective. The current proposal which lays more cost at the producer with no incentive for the retailer to achieve a premium for the product will, in all likelihood, fail.

 

Permitted development

THE lottery of whether a barn is suitable for conversion to residential development continues. The permitted development rights brought in last year give guidance on whether an agricultural building can be converted to a dwelling are being interpreted differently by local authorities.

We have had one passed in Selby, and a similar application in the same district refused by a different planning officer. We have had an isolated barn granted consent in Hambleton district, and a similar application refused in Ryedale for being in an isolated location. Appeal results against refusals are now coming through and still indicate a high level of inconsistency, but with clear evidence that whether the property is in a sustainable location is only one factor to take into account. If local authorities do not take a practical approach, there will be more work for planning lawyers.