CONCERNS OVER LIVE EXPORTS
Originally from: David
As you all probably know I have always stuck my neck out in support of live exports – on the basis we are in the EU and if I farmed in Holland, Belgium or anywhere else in the EU, I could put my sheep on a lorry and (subject to regulations), I could legally take them to the best available market in the EU without the bother of border controls.
We established ages ago that it is OK with most people to bring animals from the surrounding Islands to the UK mainland for slaughter – indeed with the closure of local slaughterhouses that is exactly what has to happen now. We can then go a bit further and it also seems OK to bring animals from France to the UK for slaughter (because it is no further than bringing them from an off lying island).
But as soon as we talk about sending live animals on a boat for one hour to Calais – the balloon goes up and activists have lost their lives trying to stop lorries.
Anyway, on reading the letter below which concerns the image of farming, I am beginning to reconsider my approach to this matter – and NO I am NOT going to demonstrate with AR people!
The plain fact of the matter is that EU rules have got rid of local slaughter houses and there are now insufficient slaughter houses in the Uk to cope – so that issue MUST be addressed if we are to ban live exports.
The next issue to address is whether or not there is a market for the meat and how much of it went to the ritual slaughter people? I am sure there are some figures somewhere. Will these sadistic religions buy the meat even if slaughtered in the UK in compliance with their Religion? And do we really want to ritually slaughter thousands of our animals in this country – would the public stand for it? My thoughts are that ritual slaughter is a small percentage (but it exists) because the biggest market is in France. The French send their (less tasty) lamb onto Africa etc.
There are a lot of questions to be answered but I now firmly believe that the Government should support the establishment of an export trade in home slaughtered meat – with the aim of gradually reducing live exports. The Government is always happy to support trade deals when it come to selling jet fighters etc.
Meanwhile the Government has just denied farmers (again) their £42m monetary compensation. (Annually farmers are denied £300m by the Government of this subsidy which is designed by the EU to keep the playing field level). They do this on the basis that the UK has to contribute 82% and because subsidies are becoming publicly unacceptable due to Government spin. I would suggest that the public would support the establishment of slaughtered exports trade rather than live and the image of farming would be improved over night.
David
LIVE EXPORTS MUST END
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/footnmouth/lexports.html
The following letter published in the Scottish Farmer illustrates the damage which the live export trade is doing to the public image of farming. Farmers must avoid being portrayed as supporting, even by their silence, the live export market. Live exports must end. Of course, this means that farmers will need to be compensated for any loss of earnings. Their strategy must be to argue for new markets to be built upon the principles of Localisation and Food Sovereignty, http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/root2.htmljust as they argue for financial compensation and subsidies to enable farming to move this way.
CONCERNS OVER LIVE EXPORTS
The Scottish Farmer
27 July 2002, p. 8.
Sir: On Monday, July 15, live lamb exports to Europe resumed from the port of Dover. It is now widely known among farmers and animal welfarists that a most uncertain fate awaits these poor animals in the slaughterhouses of some Mediterranean countries.
At the time of Muslim festivals, tens of thousands of sheep end up having their throats cut open then left to die, choking on their own blood. In France in particular, these acts are carried out openly, with no intervention by the authorities.
One would expect the most vociferous opponents of this horrific trade to be the "caring" farmers who bring these animals in to the world; the farmers who wept in front of the television cameras as their animals were being put down during the foot-and-mouth epidemic; the farmers who were, in some cases, paid hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation but could no longer afford to feed their dogs.
Strangely enough, this does not appear to be the case, as the NFU chief livestock adviser, Kevin Pearce, slammed animal welfare societies for calling for an end to live exports (The Scottish Farmer, 20.7.02). Mr Pierce suggested that the welfare lobby would serve its principles better if it targeted those EU member states with poor welfare records.
Here we have the National Farmers' Union admitting on the one hand, that farm animal welfare in some EU countries leaves something to be desired, on the other hand, they are sending their helpless animals into what can be conditions of appalling cruelty in the name of profit.
If there are farmers out there who feel that live exports should stop, the sooner they speak out the better. After all, they do their case, when appealing for public sympathy, no good whatsoever by keeping quiet.
John Williamson, Wyvis Croft, Heights of Fodderty, Strathpeffer.
Originally from: coleen
Hi David
I think that the criteria should be 'work together'. No one wins in these situations – least of all the animals. Some farmers sell some sheep, and make some money, but look at the bad press that entails. The public think that ALL farmers are the same. If there could be a better way then mass exporting live sheep to slaughter – then surely this has to be a step in the right direction. I have repeatedly said, that the public think all us Country folk are cruel, mass murdering animal owners. Until that image alters, you will never convince them to support farming or the Countryside.
Coleen
Originally from: Joyce
Hi David,
We didn't establish that is was OK for animals to travel any great distance for slaughter....only travelling for breeding [or possibly overwintering...itself a contentious issue WRT disease control] which generally means they would be well looked after on their journey.
Travel to slaughter should be minimal and ON the islands too.
Here farmers and AR's could actually work together.
Joyce
Originally from: Farmtalking
I think Coleen is right – if only we could work together!
In a few areas we can see that when we do small changes are being made and are successful. Take a look at the success the small group Heart of Galloway has achieved in only a year!
I've just posted a message concerning the damage western aid is doing in India and if we look carefully we can see that the same damage is being done here. The gap between rich and poor is growing greater and small farms are being lost as people leave the land and move to the cities.
More and more we are losing the means we had through which local produce could be sold locally and it has to stop. Local abbatoirs, processing plants and markets must return and be supported.
We have to turn this around if we possibly can for everyone's sake, both at home and abroad. This total lack of respect and care for our fellow human beings and the animals has to stop, before we completely ruin our world.
Originally from: David
Hi Sue,
You have been quiet. Have you had a better season on the B&B?
Regarding your query about vet charges, I suppose this is still a result of the changes the EU brought in for meat inspection – a diktat the Tories forced on the industry TWO years earlier than was required. – Overzealous bureaucrats! The change was that, in accordance with customs in France, Germany etc., vets had to carry out the meat inspection. I'm not positive but I think in the confusion vets went into slaughter houses (not having been trained to be meat inspectors) and inspected the live animals to see if they were healthy enough to be slaughtered whilst the local authority meat inspectors carried on with their job. The rule that that affected the cost was that vets are supposed to be in attendance at all times while slaughtering is being carried out whilst a meat inspector would call by, say in the morning, to check that the carcases had set properly and decide if any should be rejected.
Obviously this led to a serious burden on small slaughterhouses who only slaughtered a few a day to the extent that they went out of business. A big slaughterhouse killing thousands a day can cope with the cost of the vet.
Take care
David
Originally from: David
"Until that image alters, you will never convince them to support farming or the Countryside".
My point exactly.
David
Originally from: coleen
When I asked a Vet as to why the abattoirs has closed, he said it was simply down to money. Many of them did not meet EU standards (is this a joke) and there was not the money to bring them into line.
Several weeks ago I read of several farmers trying to get together to reopen the Carlisle abattoir. I have not read if they managed this or not.
I was wondering why some of these consortiums do not apply for lottery grants... After all the field is wide and diverse as to what the lottery supports, The re-opening up local abattoirs does put jobs back into the community. I was thinking of the Islands – Joyce would this work do you think? Surely this should also get the backing of the AR people, as it would mean less live trade! Perhaps we should do canvassing and see how the land lies. In this surely, we could 'come together'.
Coleen
Originally from: coleen
Taken from the Guardian Archive
Coleen
So ingrained has the concept of cheap food become that it seems impossible now to eradicate it from the political process, institutional planning and the public mind. Yet no one seems to stop to count the true cost of 'cheap food'.
For a number of years the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been following a covert policy of closing down 'red meat' abattoirs. The theory was that there were too many of them to be viable – and it was true that many of them were badly run.
Under the guise of implementing EU regulations, MAFF set about closing the smaller ones, and centralising the slaughter of animals in large units. The logic behind this had little to do with the EU – it would have been easy to bring the smaller abattoirs up to standard over a reasonable period – and much to do with economies of scale.
Never mind that animals would become more stressed because they would have to travel greater distances to be slaughtered. Never mind the greater chances of infectivity in the case of an outbreak of disease. The costs of slaughter would be reduced. Meat would be cheaper. The public would be appeased.
So, between 1985 and 2000, the number of abattoirs fell from 1,022 to 387. Over the same period, the average number of animals killed each week has risen from 13,313 per abattoir to 32,729. The consequences of this policy have been made evident by the course of the latest outbreak of foot-and-mouth. When the first case was identified, the focus of investigation fell on Cheale Meats in Little Warley, Essex. It has since been established that more than 600 farms, from as far away as Northumberland, Yorkshire, Gloucestershire, Isle of Wight, Northern Ireland and Scotland, send their meat there.
Originally from: David
"So, between 1985 and 2000, the number of abattoirs fell from 1,022 to 387. Over the same period, the average number of animals killed each week has risen from 13,313 per abattoir to 32,729. The consequences of this policy have been made evident by the course of the latest outbreak of foot-and-mouth. When the first case was identified, the focus of investigation fell on Cheale Meats in Little Warley, Essex. It has since been established that more than 600 farms, from as far away as Northumberland, Yorkshire, Gloucestershire, Isle of Wight, Northern Ireland and Scotland, send their meat there".
Thats interesting Colleen. If 387 slaughter houses kill 32729 animals per week, that is 12.666 million animals per week. If they kill for 50 weeks of the year the total is 633.5m animals per year. Can someone check out my arithmetic incase I have got the decimal point in the wrong place because I would have thought the figure would be about 60m per year. If indeed the figure is 633m, we do have the capacity to export slauhtered meat.
David
—If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking
To leave the group, email: ...
Originally from: brentns
From: "David" <...>
Subject: RE: [farmtalking] RE: CONCERNS OVER LIVE EXPORTS
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 15:23:47 +0100"So, between 1985 and 2000, the number of abattoirs fell from 1,022 to 387.
Over the same period, the average number of animals killed each week has
risen from 13,313 per abattoir to 32,729. The consequences of this policy
have been made evident by the course of the latest outbreak of
foot-and-mouth. When the first case was identified, the focus of
investigation fell on Cheale Meats in Little Warley, Essex. It has since
been established that more than 600 farms, from as far away as
Northumberland, Yorkshire, Gloucestershire, Isle of Wight, Northern Ireland
and Scotland, send their meat there".Thats interesting Colleen. If 387 slaughter houses kill 32729 animals per
week, that is 12.666 million animals per week. If they kill for 50 weeks
of
the year the total is 633.5m animals per year. Can someone check out my
arithmetic incase I have got the decimal point in the wrong place because I
would have thought the figure would be about 60m per year. If indeed the
figure is 633m, we do have the capacity to export slauhtered meat.David
Hi David,
Probably we would need a breakdown by animal type..
How much poultry, for example, is processed in the UK..
Surely they must be including poultry for so large a total number of animals..
It seems that the total of animals slaughtered has only gone down slightly.. the increased throughput per abattoir has almost offset the decline in abattoirs.. Just an observation, not advocating this. cause i'd like to see more "local" processing capability as well
All the Best
brent
Originally from: coleen
It would be nice to think that the way forward (or back to what we had) was more local abattoirs.
Did you know that WI took a vote this June at their Brighton meeting 4000 members and record breaking 900 observers of which 97% were in favour of just this. We might laugh at the thought of the WI – but they have their depth in the rural communities. http://www.womens-institute.co.uk/conf.shtml
Coleen
Originally from: David
I forgot about poultry
D
Digg
reddit
Google Bookmarks
Yahoo! My Web
del.icio.us
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
livejournal
Facebook
BlinkList