Sir, – I feel compelled to highlight several key points of debate with reference to Jim Brown’s article (The SF, May 13), drawing comparisons between farming in the UK with continued support and New Zealand post-subsidies.
Before making any comments on another country, it is sometimes beneficial to have a better understanding of its culture first and also be careful listening to second-hand information.
The removal of subsidies gave farming a real shake up in mainly the sheep and beef sectors. Dairying wasn’t so reliant, so was less affected.
In New Zealand, a farmer’s status is not measured by the vintage of the vehicle they drive. Kiwis are more inclined to invest in a holiday home to give them the lifestyle they want.
Driving the point of farmer’s affordability towards owning new vehicles with the continuation of subsidies in the UK does not make good reading in the eyes of the British public – something they would take a very dim view on.
As a person in New Zealand, one gets more recognition for what they do in the community, irrespective of what they own.
We moved to NZ 18 years ago because of the ongoing fragmentation of the UK dairy industry. Out of that 18 years, we have had 16 good years – so it was the right move for us at the time, after having tracked the direction of dairying in the UK over the last 18 years.
But, we must still be poor farmers, because we still have a vehicle more than 10 years old. What must people like Mr Brown think.


Allan Black
Southland,
New Zealand