once outside the EU, they would be able to ignore all European rules and regulations. He said that, firstly, they should remember that those which are ‘directly applicable’, often stemming from EU Directives, and covering matters such as VAT, and employment rules, will remain in force, having been transposed into UK law by a domestic Act of Parliament, as provided for in the government’s recent White Paper. Secondly, the rules imposed by European Convention of Human Rights will still apply, as it is not affected by Brexit. Mr Aubrey said that EU rules would still be relevant for UK goods


exported to the EU. Indeed, farmers might have twice as much to think about, with potentially different rules for produce remaining within the UK or being exported elsewhere. Mr Aubrey said that the negative effects of the wrong decisions


being made for the farming community would be widespread. This was not only because farmers were the ‘caretakers’ of a large proportion of UK land but also because of the importance of the agri-sector to the economy, a dynamic which, he said, was often overlooked. While the fate of car plants had attracted a high profile since the UK voted for Brexit ‘the number of people in farming, or dependent on it, is much greater than in the automotive sector that we hear so much about’. The rural sector also contributes more than the automotive sector to the UK economy as a whole. Those involved in agriculture should work to change the public perception of the industry, a sentiment with which this column would heartily agree.


GEARING UP FOR BREXIT This publication has long advocated that, in the run-up to Brexit, agribusiness organisations should get together to pool their expertise and, as far as possible, enable the industry to speak with a united voice. Not a very difficult proposition, you may say and, indeed, the


industry is doing just that. The Agri-Brexit Coalition is a new grouping of eight organisations and trade associations involved in agribusiness, which is aiming at bringing together the collective expertise of this particular sector of UK Agriculture Plc as the negotiations on Brexit progress. The coalition’s co-ordinator, AIC Chief Executive David


Caffall, explained that the Agri-Brexit Coalition has been founded by the Agricultural Engineers Association, Agricultural Industries Confederation, the British Society of Plant Breeders, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the Crop Protection Association, the Grain and Feed Trade Association, the National Association of Agricultural Contractors, and the National Office of Animal Health. The new group will focus on those key issues in Brexit negotiations which are pertinent to the UK trading and supplying of goods, services, technology and advice to UK farmers. Its stated purpose is to inform and influence UK Governments in order to achieve a positive outcome to negotiations for UK Agriculture as well as the EU and the wider world.


Mr Caffall said that whatever shape UK agriculture takes over the coming years, the industry and the nation will depend on higher


PAGE 16 MAY/JUNE 2017 FEED COMPOUNDER


efficiency and productivity along with successful relationships with other countries. Adding that members of the coalition were the principal means by which knowledge was transferred and technical advance implemented on farm, he said that the coalition was a resource which could be offered to UK Governments, providing a ‘one-stop shop’ of expertise.


ANTIBIOTIC ALERT The word seems to be getting around that profligate use of antibiotics poses a very major threat to human health. Where the feed industry is concerned, over recent years we have


seen the use of antibiotics in the EU banned in a growth promoting role. In the US, the law against indiscriminate use of antibiotics has been strengthened and there are regular reports that significant producers of livestock products such as chickens are taking steps beyond the legal minimum in this regard. Tyson Foods, the largest U.S. poultry producer, plans to eliminate the use of human antibiotics in its chicken flocks by September 2017; this is by some distance, the most aggressive timetable yet set by an American poultry company for phasing out antibiotic usage. The company also said that it was working on ways to curtail such on-farm drug practices at its other protein businesses, which include pork and beef. Tyson’s move marks the latest push by the livestock and food


industries to reduce the use of antibiotics crucial to human health in meat production. Public health experts and federal regulatory bodies are ‘concerned that routine feeding of antibiotics to animals could spur creation of antibiotic-resistant superbugs in humans, creating a potential health hazard’. In a further significant move, Tyson’s decision will help the company meet the deadline, recently reported by McDonald’s for its US restaurants, gradually to stop buying chicken raised with human antibiotics over the next two years, although MacDonald’s was quick to stress that Tyson’s timetable was not synchronized with that of McDonald’s, to which Tyson is a leading chicken supplier. The shift away from human antibiotics in its poultry business is not expected to change Tyson’s costs, the company said, and is part of ‘an ongoing effort’ that went beyond McDonald’s. The announcement was welcomed by public health and consumer


groups, which noted that the US’s top three chicken producers had all made commitments to end routine antibiotic use. The pressure now, critics say, will be for meat companies to carry those changes over to their beef and pig units. Critically however, while Tyson controls its chicken supply


chain from beginning to end, from owning the birds to supplying the medicated feed to the contract farmers that raise the broilers for them, the company buys pigs, cattle and turkeys from independent farmers. As a result, Tyson’s does not know what volumes of medically important antibiotics are being used on-farm for the company’s other meat businesses, because it does not own all the livestock or control the production or the supply of feed. Tyson’s Chief Executive said that ‘We simply don’t know because we don’t own those animals.’ To gain clarity and to cast additional light upon the situation,


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68