This ambitious initiative offers great opportunities for UK farming

This article was commissioned and first published by Feed Compounder magazine. Although written for readers in the animal feed trade, I hope it's relevant to others in agribusiness and farming.

If you haven’t already scrawled in your diary KEEP FREE across 26th to 29th September 2013, now is the time to do so. As you may know, it is proposed to stage a major exhibition of British farming, food and countryside to the Great British Public in Hyde Park, London, on those four days.

The event will be free to enter and regular readers of the farming press will be aware already that it’s the brainchild of some ambitious farmers. Having set up Farming in the Park Ltd (FITP) to promote it, they claim the proposal “has been warmly received across the farming scene,” and has also elicited a message of support from His Royal Highness, The Duke of Edinburgh.

An early list of supporting organisations is posted on the FITP website, including JCB and John Deere, NFU and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Ocado and The British Christmas Tree Growers Association. As yet, the animal feed industry doesn’t appear to have troubled the website manager, but hopefully that’s about to change.

Essentially, the proposal is to repeat and eclipse the successes of two such events in 1989 and 1992, each attended by nearly a million people. The 2013 instigators are challenging every county in Britain to stage a one-acre exhibit showing off their farming, food and countryside. Clearly, the resulting nation picture will allow visitors to explore and enjoy a diverse variety of the farming industry’s aspects and outputs.

Suspending cynicism and scepticism for a moment, supporting this event seems like a no-brainer to your correspondent. It’s been done before successfully. It taps into a healthy interest among a good proportion of the public in food and how the countryside is being managed. At the end of the 1992 event, more than 90% of exhibitors said another event should be held soon and FITP says “20 years later this is long overdue.” And as their website points out, “across Britain, from county shows to open farms, there has been an impressive amount of activity and initiative to engage with all age groups. We now need to tap into this communication renaissance.”

Building on existing success, the proposal’s aspiration to utilise activity and funding streams that are already up and running looks particularly sensible in today’s climate of government austerity. It cites a feature called ‘Why Farming Matters in Kent’ at the county show, where a mini-orchard, shearing demo with Romney Marsh sheep, and a replica oast house drying hops for real, have all been created using funds from the Rural Development Programme for England, locals charitable trusts and corporate sponsorship.

According to the proposal, similar initiatives to this are taking place in other parts of the country that are equally worthy of a shop window in the nation’s capital. Also, perhaps dropping a hint to the farming unions, it suggests “the possibility of national organisations helping a county organisation put on a display.” Pledges received already include a state of the art combine harvester and a NABIM baking demonstration that could feature in a field to plate story about bread staged by one of the eastern counties. Notably, and here is an opportunity for our sector, the website doesn’t yet contain an equivalent proposed livestock feature.

Meanwhile, continuing with positive attitudes, the company that organised the 1989 and 1992 event – whose business involves organising large scale outdoor events such as Proms in the Park – has done a feasibility study. This was paid for by the NFU and Singer Foundation, and found the proposal to be viable. The Royal Parks and Westminster City Council are reported to be “agreeable, indeed enthusiastic, about an event similar to 1989 and 1992.” Factors including security and access, staging and management, traffic and transport, setting up and dismantling, daylight length and weather contingencies, and the dreaded elfinsafety, have all been considered.

Back in 1989, 500,000 was the predicted attendance and it turned out to be 940,000, and next year Farming in the Park are estimating on the cautious side at one million. Given the mainstream position now occupied by food production and its security of supply in the country’s governmental and media consciousness, the FITP proposal also suggests “good media attention both regionally and nationally.” The regional mention here is quite important here because one wouldn’t want this event to be exclusively London-centric, and modern media enable this not to be the case more easily than ever before.

Cost-wise, with fingers crossed that the escalating Olympics model hasn’t been used, an event budget of £3 million is estimated, to be covered by sponsorship and sales. The organisers are seeking farming and industry organisations “with the resources, profile and creativity to portray the farm to fork story and work with others to ensure the result gives visitors [and as many people as possible not there in person but seeing it reported*] a positive and vibrant view of British farming that lasts.” (*Author’s addition)

In addition to sponsors, turning this from dream into reality requires people “with commitment, drive and organisational talent” and the organisers are “keen to hear from anyone who has the necessary resources, skills or contacts.” They offer “an opportunity for individuals and organisations to shine and add immeasurable value to British farming.”

So here’s the deal. For the avoidance of doubt, I currently have no role, formally or informally, with Farming in the Park Ltd, not even as a pro bono volunteer (though this may change…if they’ll have me). It is my view that this event offers companies in farm supply a great opportunity to demonstrate their significant commitment to farmers on whom their business depends for its very existence. For those with deep enough pockets and clear enough vision, a national sponsor’s berth is the obvious and probably easiest option. Others with regional boundaries to their business interests, many feed firms included, might be able to support the counties they cover with local sponsorships.

Alternatively, rather than handing over a big lump of your company’s hard-earned, an easy-payment option could be to make some organisational horsepower available to FITP from your workforce. Long before the event takes place, there would be an ongoing dividend on this investment in the form of professional development, and a significantly expanded contacts book, for those involved. Personally, I’d recommend making one director and one junior member of staff, selected on merit by an open-to-all process, available for up to one day a week each. The rationale and justification for two volunteers is that a director can offer experience and should capture new contacts for the company’s network rather than just their own; and a junior would supply energy in abundance and should gain markedly in personal growth.

Last month, the Institute of Agricultural Engineers (IAgrE) declared their support for the proposal. Quoted in Farmers Guardian, chief executive Chris Whetnall regretted how the gap between farmers and consumers had widened and expressed hope that this could be reversed. “This event will help to educate the general public and showcase how advanced agricultural technology has become and how it is being applied to achieve efficient, sustainable, food production,” he said.

The IAgrE chief also lamented how the Royal Show’s demise had left farmers without a flagship event to show the general public where food came from. Notwithstanding how that event’s confused targeting was arguably a factor in its closure, this column was saying a similar thing four years ago. To recap, under the optimisitic headline ‘Breath of fresh air, one hopes, at RASE’, plaudits were being offered to the Royal Show organiser when they announced successful restaurateur and now BBC Masterchef talisman John Torode as its president-elect. Sadly, he never got to wear the gold chain due, it was said at the time, to other commitments.

At the time though, it was hoped this media-savvy public figure could make his year in office an unprecedented success in the annals of the RASE’s work “promoting rural excellence” as it said on their website at the time. Although his year in office wasn’t due to begin until October, this column hoped he would stick his blender into the 2008 Royal Show and its commitment “to promoting the best of British farming”.

For a start, we suggested he get them to bite the bullet and make the Great British public their one and only target audience for the event. Then, in recognition that the GBP aren’t really interested in farming per se, he could change the Royal’s commitment to “promoting the best of British food”. Another suggestion was to align the event with the incredibly successful BBC Good Food Shows. In addition to the four incarnations at the time (Summer, Scotland, London and Birmingham), this column proposed a fifth one, perhaps called the Good Food and Farming Show, concentrating on where it all comes from.

Back in 2008, this column signed off with: “Of course, such a radical departure would probably require the RASE to give up some of their sovereignty over the existing (and sadly declining) Royal Show. But it’s my belief that the time for this event to move on by quantum leap rather than evolution is at least ten years overdue. The easy view to take would be the cynical one that it will never happen. However, I’d prefer to believe that the appointment of a maverick like Torode might just signify a radical shift in attitude and approach. Well done, RASE, on landing such a good catch. Now let’s see what you can do with him.”

So you read it here first, of course. QED.

PS If you do approach Farming in the Park about getting involved, please mention that you read about it here in Feed Compounder. Thank you.

Vet setting the pace in agribiz customer relations

This article was commissioned and first published by Feed Compounder magazine. Although written for readers in the animal feed trade, I hope it's relevant to others in agribusiness and farming.

The veterinary profession as a whole may not be renowned for setting the pace in managing relationships with customers, but it does have one or two beacons of excellence. A recent conversation with one of these has made me aware for the first time of the Net Promoter Score (NPS) concept.[1] Although a quick Google search finds critics as well as supporters, NPS is genuinely helping drive this practice’s client service towards consistent excellence and may well have uses in the animal feed sector.

As explained by proponent Mike Thorne from FarmVetSolutions in Leicestershire, the concept involves asking customers a single ‘Ultimate Question’ defined by the system’s creator Fred Reichheld: “On a scale of zero to 10, how likely is it that you would recommend [Company X] to a friend or colleague?” where 0 = no chance and 10 = definitely.

Clearly, the question needs asking by someone independent from the company and at least 30 customer responses should be obtained each time it’s done, which is twice yearly in the vet practice’s case. Responses of nines and tens are classified ‘Promoters’; sevens and eights are ‘Passives’;  and the remainder, ‘Dectractors’.

Based on the system’s extensive research base rather than hunch, Promoters are loyal customers, enthusiastic even, who will keep buying as long as product/service quality and value for money are maintained, and the need it satisfies endures. They may also pass on positive word-of-mouth endorsement to others. Passives are unenthusiastic, not particularly loyal and therefore vulnerable to better offers from other suppliers. Detractors are unhappy customers who are probably spreading negative word-of-mouth right now and likely to take their business elsewhere soon. Types of business likely to have lots of Detractors are banks and mobile phone firms, who manage to stay in business largely because of the perceived pain to customers of changing. Those with many Promoters would include Apple, Alfa Romeo and Keenan.

However, much more important than how others fare is putting the system to good use in your own firm. I’ve criticised benchmarking here previously and return to the same theme: The best benchmarks to use are your own targets and aspirations for the business. They can be truly useful for trend spotting, staff alignment and promoting internal change-for-the-better.

This is how our vet friend uses it. The practice gets an independent person to contact a random sample of clients every six months until they have 30 responses. To Detractors and Promoters, they also ask one follow up question and transcribe the responses verbatim. This question is, “That’s quite high/low, can I just ask please why you give that score?”

The Net Promoter Score is simply Promoters minus Detractors. Another user in the UK farm arena is Bill’s Fine Feeds, where the latest results were 40% Promoters, 35% Passives and 25% Detractors, giving a NPS of +15. This is down by five since last time and has already prompted re-training for all staff and directors, together with dual-calling by a director with the reps to all Detractors and Passives to attempt, before it’s too late, a break-out from the mediocrity rut in which the feed supply relationship is clearly stuck.

The targets now at Bill’s Fine Feeds are 25 then 35 in six and 12 months’ time respectively. The NPS system was adopted there because Bill felt it was easy for everyone to understand that they were striving simply to create more Promoters and fewer Detractors as a result of consistently high quality products and service, good value for money and caring, supportive relationships with every customer. “These are much more tangible things than any other customer satisfaction indexes I’ve seen,” says Bill.

Where the system perhaps falls down and attracts its own detractors is in making comparisons between different businesses and sectors. It also may be less relevant to washing powder sales than animal feeds and veterinary services. But within a business like Mr Thorne’s or Bill’s, it’s routine use has value.

Crudely, it can keep staff on their toes. More strategically, it can also be used to align everyone’s efforts in the right direction towards healthy profits (when you make money and strengthen loyalty and goodwill) rather than unhealthy profits (exploiting customers at the expense of goodwill and loyalty)…hence the Apple and banking metaphor.

In a survey of 1,256 UK adults and their buying behaviour, the London School of Economics found that word of mouth advocacy (as measured by NPS) and negative word of mouth were statistically significant predictors of sales growth.[2] It suggests achieving the target of a 20-point increase in NPS at Bill’s Feeds could be worth a 3% increase in annual sales growth. Over and above existing growth in BFF’s £12 million turnover, that’s about £360,000/year of additional sales at negligible increase in overheads. Readers know better than me how much additional gross margin from this is likely to find its way to the bottom line.

Moreover, the LSE boffins also suggest that the NPS arising from asking employees whether they would recommend working for the company to friends, and investors on investing likewise, are predictors of productivity and share performance respectively.

And icing with a cherry on top is that NPS is very low cost and easy to get under way. If you’re interested in more details, look up reference 2.

New knowledge transfer paradigm: A whole brain at a time

For any business or sector of business to remain vibrant, innovative and competitive, dead wood needs to be cleared and replaced with vigorous new growth. In the worlds of hairdressing or fast food take-aways, motor repairs or indeed animal feed supplies, this is a fairly simple matter: Those not good enough to be able to pay their bills go out of business; and the barriers to entry are low enough to allow ambitious start-ups to have a go in their place.

One consequence of this is that knowledge transfer, and the improvement it creates, happens automatically and in the most effective way there is…a whole brain at a time. However, the contrast in farming is illustrated on two facing pages of the 19^th November Farmers Guardian (FG) and couldn’t be more stark.

On page six is a report that the Princes Rural Action Programme to reduce the number of dairy farmers leaving the industry. Put this another way, it seeks to keep current farmers farming, regardless of whether this is deserved, by benchmarking costs through Dairyco’s Milkbench+ service and working with experts to reduce costs and improve performance. All very laudable too, until you see on the facing page a story from the NFU Tenants’ Conference where, according to FG, president Kendall said that for the industry to change with the times, ‘the best people’ were needed to meet the challenge of producing more and impacting less. Dead wood and new growth indeed.

An arguably realistic conclusion is that, with a handful of notable exceptions, farming is more or less a closed shop. A sitting elite (tenants and owner-occupiers alike) is being helped to preserve their occupancy at the expense of potential new entrants…except that some of those in situ are not very elite at all. Why else would the same issue of FG need to carry an article titled “Simple steps to reduce forage, straw and concentrate wastage” containing advice from the first year of a dairy OND course. Moreover, farmers who do want to improve performance can surely avail themselves of Milkbench+ and experts without the help of a ‘programme’.

In a similar vein, the industry has numerous knowledge transfer teams working diligently to push knowledge upon farmers, regardless of whether they want it or can see its merits. How much easier would it be for the industry to open up genuinely to survival of the fittest (actually, I think Darwin said it was adaptability that really mattered rather than fitness)?

Then, as opportunities open up for new entrants to take the places of those no longer adaptable or fit enough to earn their own survival, knowledge transfer can take place automatically, a whole brain at a time. For those who might feel threatened by such competition for places in the industry, it could be a whole lot worse; just spare a thought for corner shop proprietors with a new Bestco Local opening for business in the next street. Now that would test anyone’s survival skills. 

More from Bill’s Fine Feeds: Dirty tricks or legitimate competition?

Meanwhile, there’s actually a bit more to tell about what Bill’s Fine Feeds are up to. In parallel with pulling their own socks up using the NPS system, they’re working on giving rivals some rather tougher competition that they’re used to.

Bill has engaged a specialist agri-trade market research and direct marketing contractor to investigate and define their trading area’s customer base in detail. In addition to establishing livestock types, numbers and production systems by farm location, the project involves finding out who is/are the main feed suppliers. Can you see where this is going yet?

Once this is known, a different contractor is engaged to ask each farm with more than a certain number of livestock the Ultimate Question about their main supplier, then the ‘why?’ follow up. The resulting knowledge means Bill’s sales team is armed to the teeth with a unique insight into their rivals’ customers. They will know which are the Promoters and so can avoid the futility of trying to turn a loyal customer against their preferred supplier, no matter how attractive their 360-cow dairy unit might appear on the surface. Instead, they can target the soft underbelly of their competitors, confident in the knowledge that Detractor customers are not particularly loyal and so should be easier to win over with genuinely high quality and value-for-money products, an excellent service ethic and a supportive and respectful relationship.

Dirty tricks or legitimate competition? Depends on your viewpoint I suspect. Not in doubt is that this may be coming to your region sooner rather than later, if it’s not happening there already.

-ends-

References

---

[1] Mike Thorne, 5 December 2011. Interview with the author. FarmVetSolutions, Uppingham, Leicestershire. Net Promoter, NPS, and Net Promoter Score are trademarks of Satmetrix Systems, Inc., Bain & Company, and Fred Reichheld.

[2] Dr Paul Marsden et al, September 2005. Advocacy Drives Growth. London School of Economics.

New knowledge transfer paradigm: A whole brain at a time

Sometimes, we all need the help of a critical friend, to point out home truths and be our devil’s advocate. That is the intention of what follows here.

For any business or sector of business to remain vibrant, innovative and competitive, dead wood needs to be cleared and replaced with vigorous new growth. In the worlds of hairdressing or fast food take-aways, motor repairs or corner shops, this is a fairly simple matter: Those not good enough to be able to pay their bills go out of business; and the barriers to entry are low enough to allow ambitious start-ups to have a go in their place. One consequence of this is that knowledge transfer, and the improvement it creates, happens automatically and in the most effective way there is…a whole brain at a time.

The contrast in farming is illustrated on two facing pages of the 19^th November Farmers Guardian (FG) and couldn’t be more stark. On page six is the Princes Rural Action Programme to reduce the number of dairy farmers leaving the industry. Put this another way, it seeks to keep current farmers farming, regardless of whether this is deserved, by benchmarking costs through Dairyco’s Milkbench+ service and working with experts to reduce costs and improve performance. All very laudable too, until you see on the facing page a story from the NFU Tenants’ Conference where, according to FG, president Kendall said that for the industry to change with the times, ‘the best people’ were needed to meet the challenge of producing more and impacting less. By now, you will see the dead wood and new growth metaphor I hope?

Let’s face the fact that farming has become more or less a closed shop, with a sitting elite (tenants and owner-occupiers alike) being helped to preserve their occupancy at the expense of potential new entrants…except that some of those in situ are not very elite at all. Why else would the same issue of FG need to carry an article titled “Simple steps to reduce forage, straw and concentrate wastage” containing advice from the first year of a dairy OND course. Moreover, farmers who do want to improve performance can surely avail themselves of Milkbench+ and experts without the help of a ‘programme’.

In a similar vein, the industry has numerous knowledge transfer teams working diligently to push knowledge upon farmers, regardless of whether they want it or can see its merits. How much easier would it be for the industry to open up genuinely to survival of the fittest (actually, I think Darwin said it was adaptability that really mattered rather than fitness)? Then, as opportunities open up for new entrants to take the places of those no longer adaptable or fit enough to earn their own survival, knowledge transfer can take place automatically, a whole brain at a time. For those who might feel threatened by such competition for places in the industry, it could be a whole lot worse; just spare a thought for corner shop proprietors with a new Bestco Local opening for business in the next street. Now that would test anyone’s survival skills.

Who is the psychopath or mother superior in your workplace?

In the popular press recently, it’s been suggested that some psychopathic tendencies are helpful in becoming a successful entrepreneur and boss. This prompts some thoughts about other must-have leaders in the ideal management team, for example: Handyman (production), cheer leader (advertising and promotion), bean-counter (numbers and solvency), preacher (sales), mother superior (training and employee well-being) and visionary (business strategy).

With 20:20 hindsight, a business in which I was involved during the nineties and early noughties had most of these, but crucially not all. It did have some vision and direction, a brilliant numbers/solvency-protection wizard, reasonable sales and promotion, and a modicum of employee nurturing. What let it down was variable production efficiency.

For the most part, those involved in production were perfectly capable, well intentioned and committed. But what we lacked was an enforcer; an occasionally slightly psychopathic nutter of whom everyone, management team members included, was a bit scared; someone who didn’t need to be loved by their colleagues.

All successful enterprises need someone with authority who is willing to say, “That just isn’t good enough; please do something about it by tomorrow/next week/next month”…then check whether remedial work has been done and dispense praise or sanctions accordingly. Also for success, other managers need to emulate this example. For those to whom this doesn’t come naturally (most of us?), demonstrating good discipline and insisting on it from subordinates needs to be an explicit element of their job description and training. In contemporary society, it seems that the value of good discipline has slipped down the pecking order in favour of compassion, human rights, and freedom of choice. We mustn’t make this mistake in business.

As it turned out, the business in which I was involved remained solvent throughout, gave good client service fairly consistently, and provided employment for several dozen people over its 13 year existence before its orderly, all-taxes-and-debts-paid, closure. But it never ripped up the tarmac financially, and the component missing from this drag-racer was an enforcer of good discipline and good disciplines. While I don’t pretend the management team line-up above is complete or perfect, I hope you agree that all those roles are essential. To end on two of my favourite clichés*, ‘there are no bad soldiers, just bad generals’; and ‘the fish rots from the head’. [*cliché: a very short distance between two minds].

Let the fight back begin with launch of farming’s own pressure group

This is great news for UK agribusiness and an initiative behind which, I hope you agree, people and companies in the industry ought to throw their weight. This is, of course, the launch of the UK Farmer and Grower Alliance (UKFGA) – an unprecedented coalition of about 50 (yes, fifty!) farming bodies.

As you may know, its overall objective is to enhance consumer trust of farming’s role in food production. The alliance wants consumers to know that farmers share their values. But rather than just preaching what it wants the public to know about farming’s woes, UKFGA claims to be committed to answering people’s questions about how food is produced.

In doing so, it will take the opportunity, of course, to emphasize farmers’ dedication to continuous improvement in how food is produced, at the same time as being good stewards of the environment, responsible carers of animals, and an integral part of maintaining strong rural communities.

For the farming industry’s self-interest, a goal is clearly to improve public perceptions and address or counter criticisms and anti-farming sentiment. As a result, a major gain could be to maintain or even enhance the farmers’ freedom to operate. For business efficiency’s sake, the alliance is also looking to exert strong leadership in strengthening collaboration along the food production, processing and distribution chain.

There are four main strands in UKFGA’s strategy: 1) To increase the number of policymakers and government officials at all levels who value modern agriculture production; 2) to engage key customer decision makers in dialogue about the value of modern food production; 3) to work with leading national influencer organizations – in a diverse range of areas including medical, cultural, dietary and environmental, for example – to create partnerships in support of today’s agriculture; and 4) to increase the role of farmers as the voice of animal and crop production on local, regional and national food issues.

The new coalition’s annual budget is in the range £20-30 million, contributed largely by the combination of farmers’ representative bodies, industry sector organisations, and commercial sponsors. UKFGA says it will give farmers a voice in traditional and social media conversations about agriculture – where it doesn’t exist now – as well as with key influencers who are shaping the good food/bad food debates in popular culture. On farmers’ behalves, it will ask consumers about their greatest concerns with today’s food production practices and promote the agriculture community’s dedication to continuously improving how food is produced in order to provide healthy choices for people everywhere.

“A knowledge and credibility gap has formed between the people and their food,” said a spokesman. “So farmer-led organisations have joined forces because it is vital for those closest to the farm to work together and lead the conversation about producing food. Our industry is continuously changing – improving how we care for the land, our animals and our communities. Farmers want and need to do a better job of answering people’s questions about their food.”

Clearly, this will be the first time such a major combination of industry groups has collaborated on a significant effort to listen to consumers and hold two-way conversations. As we’ve seen recently with Nocton, the Women’s Institute mega-farms debate and most recently Midlands Pig Producers, there are many bodies that speak out about farming, not always accurately. How refreshing it is to have the prospect of farmers making their voices heard more prominently, and hopefully more persuasively too.

Deception scandal admitted on agri-blog

With apologies for the deception, the story above is only partly true and contains a few intentional typos. As you probably realised, UKFGA is a figment of your correspondent’s deluded imagination, though the passage above is intended as a respectful and accurate depiction of the just-launched United States Farmer and Rancher Alliance’s initiative to build greater trust of farming and food among the public (ww.usfraonline.org). Surely you didn’t really believe that such an enlightened and far-sighted alliance could be initiated here in the UK?

The spokesman quoted above is actually Bob Stallman, USFRA chairman and also president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.[1] He says he knew farmers had an image problem when his daughter, who had grown up on the family ranch, called him to ask if drinking milk would be bad for her kids. It turned out that her church had just finished watching the movie, ‘Food, Inc’.[2] This is a 2009 US documentary about corporate farming in the United States. It claimed that agribusiness produced unhealthy food using methods that were environmentally harmful and abusive of both animals and employees…hence, the daughter’s phone call.

You don’t have to spend very long on the USFRA’s website to see that US and UK farming have a very similar knowledge gap and image problem. So if our farming-orgs wanted a short cut to action, they should simply make friends with the USFRA, establish mutually beneficial exchanges of expertise and information, and unashamedly copy in full the USA’s lead. By the way, I’d like to be first in the queue for the job of UKFGA chairman.

This autumn, USFRA begins reaching out to key influencer audiences through targeted advertising, a new internet presence, top-tier media briefings and a major event addressing the public’s biggest concerns about food production. “We had a great concern that consumer trust has been eroded by the critics,” says Bob Stallman. ”It’s the first time I can recall we have ever agreed among agriculture to enhance the ability for farmers and ranchers to operate freely and increase collaboration, and put aside the issues we can’t agree on.”

Consumer attitudes are the main focus of USFRA attention. The body itself was formed in November 2010, with 49 farmer- and rancher-led affiliates including state and national groups, commodity groups, and farm organisations. Counting them up now on the website, this has risen to 51.[3] Funding is 75% from producer groups and 25% by the agribusiness sector, including input suppliers all across the food chain, according to the USFRA.

“We initially wanted to fund this at $25 to $30 million a year but even that’s not enough to run a national consumer campaign,” explains Bob Stallman, “so we’re also going to try to reach out to people who influence the attitudes of consumers.

“We’re not going to hide anything,” he adds. “We need to answer the questions consumers want answered. Farmers and ranchers have been good about telling consumers what we think they need to hear, but we have to change our attitude and stop preaching a bit.

“We’re willing to engage with those who criticize us, other than groups who deny our right to exist…those people, we can’t have a conversation with,” says Stallman. “We want to talk to local, organic, free range, anyone, but we’re going to dispute those who don’t use facts. If you want a dialogue about gestation crates, that’s fine, but if you make up something that’s not factual we’re going to dispute that.”

As an example, a typically negative headline in the US Financial Times – ‘Agribusiness battles claims of abuse and unhealthy food’ – was countered immediately by a polite and assertive open letter to all the publication’s editorial staff about USFRA’s aims[4]: “The initiative is a shift in how farmers and ranchers communicate with consumers. Farmers and ranchers are committed to continuous improvement and a better future, which is why we are listening to the biggest questions. This effort is not intended to defend the status quo but foster continuous improvement. All the voices have to work together to find solutions to our most pressing food challenges.”

USFRA also plans to show up on social as well as traditional printed media. It reports that in May 2011, there were 277,000 conversations about food and agriculture. However, the website adds that the agriculture industry’s presence was minimal. “As producers we want to be part of that online conversation,” says chairman Stallman, “which means producers need to step forward and tell their stories. For those willing to face a television camera or speak to reporters, USFRA offers media training. You don’t have to be smooth talkers, just be honest and speak from the heart.”

The key, according to USFRA, is to tell consumers how production practices benefit them. Farmers are ultimately accountable to their customers – that is, consumers in both USA and abroad – and need to show they are listening and improving, suggests Forrest Roberts, chief executive of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and chairman of the USFRA Communications Advisory Committee, which led development of the movement’s strategy.

“We want a variety of people – including a diversity of small-, medium- and large-scale farmers and ranchers – to join our conversation,” he says. “This includes some people we may not always agree with. But we want everyone who is striving to create a better future for, and accessibility to, food at the table.”

UK agribusiness call to action

If you share a concern about the knowledge gap between UK farming and the public (including pressure groups, politicians, civil servants, etc), perhaps you might spend a few minutes checking out the USFRA website then writing letters/e-mails to anyone and everyone you know in the industry – in particular, of course, farming unions, levy bodies and other influential industry orgs – and to your MP and MEP, encouraging them to embark on a similar initiative. Imitation being a sincere form of flattery, I hope our US cousins will be suitably emboldened by our support and hopefully emulation.

In addition to their website, USFRA’s web-presence includes facebook.com/pages/US-Farmers-Ranchers-Alliance/103189669746931 and twitter.com/USFRA.

This text is a lightly edited version of an original article commissioned by Feed Compounder magazine, to be published in the September issue.

References

---

[1] Mike Wilson*, 29 July, 2011. Finally: Farmers Reaching Out to Worried Consumers. http://farmfutures.com/blogs.aspx/finallyfarmersreachingouttoworriedconsumers-2500. *Executive editor, Farm Futures.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food,_Inc.

[3] http://usfraonline.org/about/affiliates/

[4] http://usfraonline.org/2011/08/usfra-responds-to-financial-times-coverage/

Autumn prosecution risk from improper rat control

PRESS RELEASE DISTRIBUTED ON BEHALF OF THE CAMPAIGN FOR RESPONSIBLE RODENTICIDE USE

20 July 2011                                                                                                    [c.450 words body text]

Farmers and gamekeepers are being alerted that misuse of rodenticides this autumn could put them at risk of prosecution. In particular, a new factsheet from the Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use (CRRU) cautions that rodenticides should be used as a time-limited rather than long-term treatment. They should also be integrated with non-chemical control measures, and the treatment site must be inspected frequently for dead rodents and disturbed bait, with rodent carcases collected and disposed of by an approved method.

A rodenticide programme should have a start, middle and end, according to CRRU chairman Dr Alan Buckle. “It may last as few as 14 days and usually no more than five weeks, depending on the severity of infestation,” he says. “Products must be used strictly according to the label, alongside non-rodenticide measures including prevention of access to food sources and elimination of refuge sites. Unused bait at the end of the treatment period should be cleared away rather than left out ‘just in case’, otherwise it will inevitably be taken by non-target rodents such as field mice and voles. These in turn are eaten by predatory birds including barn owls and kestrels, and this is a prime route by which wildlife is contaminated with rodenticides.”

For disposal of dead rodents, the information sheet defines the approved methods in order of preference:

1.      On-farm small carcase incinerator, regulated under the Animal By-product Regulation.

2.      Securely bagged in domestic waste collection, subject to local authority agreement.

3.      Off-site authorised incinerator or landfill.

4.      Only when 1-3 not possible, on-farm burial away from sensitive areas and compliant with the Code of Practice for the Protection of Water.

“Improper use of rodenticides puts children, pets and wild animals and birds at risk,” Dr Buckle adds. “Farmers and gamekeepers should use protected bait stations and visit them frequently to make sure rodenticide remains inaccessible to non-target species. It is also advisable to keep a written record of the control plan from the outset, together with a detailed list of dates and actions during the treatment period.”

In the event of suspected improper use of rodenticides and depending on location and circumstances, the Health & Safety Executive and local authorities have responsibility to investigate such incidents and, where appropriate, take enforcement action against those responsible. For professional guidance, more than 80 accredited Wildlife Aware pest control technicians are listed on the CRRU website together with the CRRU code of practice and the new Environmental Information Sheet download file*.

Further information: Dr Alan Buckle, CRRU chairman, alan@alanbuckleconsulting.com, tel: +44 (0)1730 826715 or +44 (0)7881 656564.

Author & PR contact: Phil Christopher, Red Rock Publicity, phil@redrock.uk.com, tel: 07802 672304.

*www.thinkwildlife.org.uk/downloads/Environmental_Information_Sheet_for_Anticoagulants.pdf.

New milk R&D deal claims to push back boundaries

This is an extract from an item commissioned and first published by Feed Compounder magazine (July 2011 issue) on its Screenings page. While aimed primarily at readers in the animal feed industry, I hope the content is also relevant to farming and other areas of UK agri-business. However, if you think it's bo!!o**$ please let me know.

The largest milk co-operative in France, Sodiaal-Candia, is probably best known here for its Yoplait brand, though it has many others and operates in most dairy product sectors. It has 13,000 milk producer and processor shareholders, handles 5 billion litres of milk annually, and generates €4 billion a year turnover (interestingly, if a bit crude, €0.8/litre). In April this year, the company signed an R&D contract with a biotechnology company to explore milk’s beneficial effects, both nutritional and therapeutic, on human health at the biochemical and physiological levels. The R&D partner, Rhenovia Pharma SAS, specialises in the central and peripheral nervous system. Applying their knowledge and processes to nutrition will help Sodiaal “better understand the effects of food on human health, and especially on people’s predisposition to neurodegenerative diseases.”

In particular, Rhenovia has developed a computer model of cellular and molecular mechanisms involved in a number of neurological diseases including epilepsy, neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, and psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia and depression. It pursues alliances with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies interested in, for example, identifying new targets for therapeutic molecules.

The press release announcing the R&D contract says confidently, “Results of these studies will improve our understanding of the relationships between food, health and predisposition to degenerative diseases.” Rhenovia Pharma chairman Dr Serge Bischoff says, “It makes complete sense for Rhenovia to invest in the prevention of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, and to continue to find solutions for the nutritional deficiencies that are often associated with them.”

Having been first to market with innovations that include vitamin-supplemented, micro-nutrient-enhanced, flavoured, and neonatal milks, Sodiaal-Candia claims to be a leading player in countering “the trivial status of milk over the last 40 years,” says the press release. Their Candia Just Milk brand of long-life skimmed, semi and whole milk is on sale here in Sainsbury’s, Makro and Costco outlets currently.

The intriguing point for UKdairy farmers and the milk processors they serve is whether this French rival will gain competitive advantage from its R&D investment or find itself pouring milk down the drain. Clearly, they’ll be investing shareholders’ money in search of patent-protected proprietary gains that they can brand and earn value from—Milk for Healthy Brains, perhaps—rather than milk’s generic good image. Are the UK’s milk producers and processors active in this arena, I wonder?

Answers on a postcard please.