Where do we go from here?

I know that we are in uncertain times, and as an industry we are not alone, but I am sure that, by the time of publication, we will all be committed to next year’s lambing, the tups will almost all have completed their allotted task; the deed is done, too late to halt the process now, regardless of what next year holds. Having put ewes to the tup we now have an obligation to maintain their welfare and nutritional needs, plus that of their progeny once they arrive next spring and onwards, with all of the associated effort and costs.

There cannot be many industries where producers are effectively committed to a cost structure over the next six months or more without some clear indication of what sort of returns are likely to be forthcoming. From what I have heard, early scanning results are quite encouraging. I suspect that, given the surprisingly good condition of many ewes when going to the tup, scanning results could continue to be quite high.

The longer-term future of the sheep sector is just as uncertain as the next six months; as an industry we are facing a lot of pressures. That pressure is coming from all sorts of directions; the battle to maintain some sort of profitability is ongoing, while there is also a growing influence from other areas that will ultimately impact on what we do. There is pressure from the environmental lobby, both in terms of the wider impact of sheep on the ecological environment, particularly on some of the more marginal areas, and in terms of CO2 emissions.

There are pressures from the food lobby relating to the quantities of meat, particularly red meat, generally consumed within our society. Pressure from government in pursuit of trade deals that could result in cheap imports, probably not of lamb, but of competitive products. There is a limit to the price differentials that consumers will pay; cheap imported beef, for example, will impact lamb prices as consumption patterns shift to lower-cost products. I also note with interest the growing demand for crossbred ewes (for lamb, not wool production) in Australia, with shearling ewes at some recent sales changing hands at in excess of £250 per head. There is a lot of investment going into lamb production, which is particularly concerning as the Australians are currently engaged in a bit of a trade spat with China that will divert lamb exports into alternative markets.

All of these pressures and pressure groups have a case, albeit often heavily loaded with pseudo-science, half-truths and overstatement, on CO2 emissions for example, but we all have our own agenda to pursue. Whether you agree with our critics or not is to a certain extent irrelevant; they have a right to express their views and preferences. All we can do is be prepared to challenge untruths and endeavour to be rather more honest in our engagement, putting forward valid counter arguments, based on science and facts, not opinions, no matter how firmly held or based on emotion they are.

Moving forwards, there is going be a significant revision in the level and direction of support for farmers. The Environmental Land Management scheme (ELMS) provides a good indicator of the direction of flow for support. This scheme provides for a range of measures deemed to be public goods, all related to environmental measures of various sorts. So we know what is coming; it is up to us how, when, and at what level we engage with the scheme. To a certain extent we are blessed in as much as we do have within our charge the tools to make a difference to the environment. Our sheep, and the way in which we produce them, have the potential to be excellent landscape and environmental managers. They have been doing the job for many years.

There is a common misconception that the natural vegetation of the UK is dense woodland, the mythological “wild wood”, woodland comprised of a mix of broadleaved and coniferous species, the precise constitution dependent on where we are in terms of soil types and local climate, etc. This is to a certain extent true. Abandon a block of farmland and nature will strive towards the climax vegetation, a succession of rough grasses, brambles, scrub and ultimately dense woodland. This assumption does, however, ignore (conveniently for some) the very strong probability that this was probably never the true climax vegetation of the UK.
Even in pre-history, something always got in the way. That impediment to a landscape of dense woodland was always gazing herbivores; vast herds (in prehistory) of aurochs, red deer, horses, even reindeer in the harsher environments, would almost certainly have prevented the domination of the landscape by woodland. The primordial landscape when man first arrived in the UK would have been one of open forest, similar to areas such as the New Forest today, blocks of woodland and scrub but interspersed with vast open spaces of grassland and heath.

Our sheep and cattle may have supplanted the wild herds, but they are capable of fulfilling the same function. The dream of some environmentalists of a landscape dominated by woodland is a fallacy, a desire to return to something that never existed. Take for example that quintessentially most English of trees, the oak. It is not a woodland tree; it never was, it is always at its best when it stands in glorious isolation. A varied landscape of woodland, scrub and open grazing lands, the latter managed by groups of herbivores, eg our sheep and cattle, is ecologically more diverse and supports a much broader range of wildlife than dense woodland as well as having greater aesthetic appeal.

There will be many opportunities for our sheep to make a positive contribution towards an improved and ecologically sounder UK environment, but this will not come without some significant change, a change in the way we produce, the volume of production and possibly the breeds that we maintain. In general sheep are remarkably adaptable animals, it is simply that some breeds have a greater level of resilience and ability to adapt to changing circumstances than others. For fear of causing offence, I will not go any further down that route, but I’m sure the majority of sheep breeders will recognise the sentiment, even if reluctantly.
We have been relatively lucky within the sheep sector in that we have not been driven to the extremes of intensification that have been forced by finances on other livestock sectors. I know of producers who really feel uncomfortable with having to maintain stock (not sheep) on a nutritional knife-edge, often significantly reducing productive life and verging constantly on compromises of welfare, simply to maintain the levels of production required to make some sort of positive margin.

The sheep sector has to date not followed this path, and the sector now has the opportunity, although perhaps less so with smaller flocks, to step back and keep our flocks in a more sustainable way while making a contribution towards a better, CO2 emission reduced (if not neutral), more ecologically diverse, interesting and aesthetically pleasing landscape and environment. All we need to do is approach it with an open mind, a willingness to adapt and to accept part of our income from different sources. The provision of public goods and a healthy, diverse and safe environment is just as important to us, to society and to future generations as the production of good quality lamb.

There will always be those that will say: “But it isn’t proper farming.” I would ask: “What is proper farming?” Farming for the short term, taking all that you can from the soils and the environment, is relatively easy, particularly when aided by modern technology, big machines and an arsenal of chemicals. Farming for the long-term, leaving soils and the countryside in good heart for those generations that will follow us, is a little more challenging. Personally I would rather be in the latter category. Others are, of course, free to disagree.