Labour wins big, But unexpected hurdles arise

While the overall result was probably not in doubt, some of the outcomes were not foreseen – the nuances will make life both interesting and challenging in equal measure for some time to come.

Any good politician knows that statistics can be made to read in a way that benefits your cause. While the Labour party has a massive majority in Westminster – 64% in terms of available seats – their vote share was only just over half of that, 33.7% of the total vote.

MORE OPINION | No Scotland, no party! Scots sweep Great Yorkshire Show

MORE OPINION | Variety evaluation is key to sustainable crop production

This demonstrates less of an impressive mandate and although I am certain Sir Keir Starmer will concentrate on the former statistic, I’m just as sure the 33.7% will be mentioned on more than one occasion by parties in opposition, perhaps bringing a balance to their style of government.

A landslide majority for any party is always a little alarming, and we wait with bated breath to see what their approach is with regard to agricultural policy.

First and foremost, we need confirmation of the agricultural support budget – the previous post-Brexit financial commitment to agriculture left Number 10 along with the Conservative government. Farming is a fluid and ongoing process, where planning is sometimes required years in advance, so the sooner the better.

The situation in Scotland is even more interesting. The SNP presence has been decimated in Westminster, a likely backlash against their Scottish rather than their Westminster performance, which had been fairly effective as the third biggest party in the Commons.

Sir Keir was quick off the mark, making Scotland his first port of call, signalling his intention to target Scottish seats. There is a very real possibility – even a probability based on the recent election – that he could be in charge of all three GB governments after the next Scottish election. I hope that the current government will take this on board.

Scotland has a proud agricultural heritage. Our country is not just accidentally beautiful – its landscape is enhanced because it has been managed by generations of Scottish farmers.

Give or take, the Scottish Government has two years to make some positive changes to gain support from the custodians of the land – it’s time to listen to our industry.

That brings me almost full circle – once again – to the Scottish Suckler Beef Support Scheme. Yes, I can hear the collective sigh. While some are fed up of hearing about it, others are just fed up and at their wits’ end.

One market has declared a record number of dispersal sales since the conditionality was announced, a resounding response to the failure of the decision-makers to listen. While government may not be directly encouraging a decrease in cow numbers, this is the result.

There is always a straw that breaks the camel’s back, and for some the calving index addition to the SSBSS is that straw.

It remains morally incomprehensible that all farmers were not allowed to participate from day one. Force majeure – although we are told will be on a case-by-case basis – will likely only cover death of a farmer, serious illness, critical disease or building collapses. There is no framework in place to cover all eventualities, and as everyone in our industry knows, livestock are nothing if not unpredictable.

The wider implications of proposed changes on smaller herds, and those around the west coast and islands are worrying. The recent SRUC report highlighted that, in 2023, 55% of island claims were for less than 20 calves, and a large percentage of mainland and west coast herds contain between 20-30 cows.

There are several potential situations which have not been considered in the proposal which could have dire consequences for small herds. For example, the new scheme will not account for a situation where a new bull doesn’t work. The required calving index is 410 days – the maximum time between calvings for an animal to qualify.

In a small herd with one bull, it can take two cycles to confirm a bull is not working. Even assuming the bull is set to be replaced after the first cycle at 21 days, it will take a week to 10 days to find, purchase and take delivery of a new bull.

The Scottish Government’s own recommendations are that new animals are isolated for two weeks, moving the normal calving index of 365 days out by a minimum of 42-45 days. The calving interval is now over the permitted 410 days, eliminating scheme payments for the whole herd.

For many small herds, the calf payment is a vital financial boost, a necessity and critical to the survival of the wider rural community in which they live. A hidden environmental agenda seems to be hell-bent on removing small herds from the equation, and this appears to be one such way of achieving that without actually putting it into words.

These small herds, and especially those on high ground, make a huge contribution to land management, nature and biodiversity – certainly they have more a positive impact on our environment than any GHG reductions which would result from these herds falling by the wayside from lack of support.

Recent presentations from Professor Peter Byck from Arizona State University have demonstrated that a cow without a calf is doing as much for soil regeneration and carbon sequestration as a cow with a calf, so from an environmental perspective, removing these small herds which graze remote pasture seems to be an own goal.

I’m also aware there are producers who are happy with the proposals. I hear you, but I urge you to see the bigger picture and stick together. The threat to the whole industry – and the potential market crash if critical mass is lost – will have a huge impact on all producers regardless of their calving index. Anything that risks further decline in suckler cow numbers will have devastating consequences for food security and for our industry, and for the rural communities and their way of life in many of our more remote areas.

The best time to challenge a government is when they are at their most vulnerable, and that is now. I’ll leave you with this thought. The environmental benefit of the whole upheaval may show a reduction in GHG emissions of 1.4%.

Reducing days to slaughter by only nine days across the whole suckler herd would deliver approximately the same advantage. Except, of course, that critical mass and food security would remain stable and unchallenged. Food for thought.