DECIDING not to make the 700-mile round trip early last week to attend the annual Oxford Farming Conference, which is a prestigious occasion, was not a difficult choice in this day of modern technology when one can sit in the office and watch the proceedings online.
What seemed clearly important was how Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet secretary for rural affairs, and Hilary Benn, his opposite number in Whitehall, would shape up and, more importantly, what they had to say in relation to agriculture.
Lochhead's
performance was more than adequate, but his address was better than that with some real content. We in the media have been aware for some weeks that Lochhead had dispensed with a previous speechwriter: that is proving to be a sound move.
Basically, what he said was that the Scottish Government is committed to promoting and supporting a strong and vibrant food industry with the declared aim of producing the current annual output of £7 billion up to at least £10 billion over the next few years. That is a commendable objective, but it may prove difficult in the current economic climate.
But from the strictly farming perspective, the commitment to continue supporting the industry financially will be widely welcomed.
Benn, on the other hand, gave the clear impression that he would like to see the vast majority of support measures, save those for the environment, ditched as soon as possible.
Benn may be a decent chap, but he obviously does not understand that public support for agriculture tends to deliver cheap food for consumers.
The big problem for Scotland is that its influence in Brussels, despite the sterling efforts of some MEPs, is relatively lightweight. Lochhead and his parliamentary colleagues would like to see more power devolved to Scotland.
To be fair to Brussels, Scotland already has a considerable degree of independence, always provided decisions are made within the broad remit of the common agricultural policy. The deal struck by Lochhead's predecessor, Ross Finnie, over CAP reform in 2003 clearly demonstrated that and saw envious eyes south of the Border look north to Edinburgh.
Meanwhile, the big issue before the European Parliament this week is the proposal to ban a wide range of commonly used chemicals in the farming and horticulture sectors. There is little doubt that many of the prohibitions would cause serious problems.
The arguments on each side of the divide have been protracted and complex, but last week I received a communication from Dr James Gilmour, formerly a leading crop scientist with the Scottish Agricultural College, in which he stresses the difference between hazard and risk.
Gilmour said: "It makes no sense at all to base all regulatory legislation on the assessment of hazard rather than risk, no matter how politically active the populist approach may seem. I fear there is still a great deal of misunderstanding of the very important difference between hazard and risk.
"The link between the two is exposure: if there is no exposure, there will be no risk, even when the hazard if high. It is no joke, and no exaggeration, to say that if the criteria in the draft regulation were applied to coffee, the drinking of it would be banned throughout the European Union.
"The hazards to human health associated with some of the compounds are well known, but the risks to human health from drinking coffee are minute and universally accepted. That risk approach is the sensible way of making an assessment when there is a known hazard, as it has a sound scientific basis."
Gilmour also goes on to claim, probably correctly, that if the pesticide ban goes through in its present form, then there should be major implications for the medical profession.
Some of the drugs in common use are based on the same chemistry as azole fungicides regularly used in crop protection. However, no such hazard assessment has been made from the medical angle. Common sense tends to be a rare commodity in Brussels.
LOCHHEAD will be back on his feet this afternoon when he addresses a conference in Bridge of Allan jointly organised by the Scottish Beef Cattle Association and the Scottish region of the National Sheep Association.
The meeting is sure to be well attended by real farmers and not just the usual battery of consultants and advisers who trail round the conference circuit.
I have no pre-knowledge of what Lochhead will say or how he will respond to questions from the floor. He could do worse than make it clear just when Scotland's hill farmers will receive the £61 million of aid due to them through the less favoured areas support scheme (LFASS) and explain how it has not proved possible to pay that measure and the much larger single farm payment in the same calendar year.
Last week Liam McArthur, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on rural development at Holyrood, raised that very issue with Lochhead only to be informed that there were certain technical difficulties. Could it be that the government's budget is getting tighter by the day?
In any event, the pledge to commence LFASS payments before the end of 2008 appears to have been broken. Rest assured, questions on that front will come fast and furious at Bridge of Allan.
FINALLY, it is good to see the massive upturn in the sheep trade over the past two weeks. Obviously the weakness of the pound is a major factor, but so is the shortage of supplies.
The current trade for lambs heading for slaughter for those who still have them will boost bank balances. But the real concern has to relate to hill farmers and crofters who had no option other than to sell their annual crop at the autumn sales.
Prices at those events were little different from 20 years ago and some way has to be found of lifting incomes in the remote areas of Scotland. There is already a quiet, and largely unnoticed, reduction in sheep and cattle numbers. If something is not done soon, there will be a second Highland Clearance.
