Sheep should win in the forestry debate

The facts are that the price of the prime lamb has never been as high in the last six months and wool return is on the increase. A poor winter and lambing is being countered by a great growth to what is on the ground, but our margins are turning a corner.

Whilst your paper rightly reported the message from Scotsheep that the political environment could cause sheep farming problems, the general feeling on the day was positivity, backed by one buyer declaring they need more than 2.5m lambs and the pre-stun Halal market is growing at a huge rate in a younger buying group.

When compared with forestry, sheep farming must be recognised as being at the very bottom of sloping playing field. To be able to compete with forestry, we would need to have a grant to buy ewes, a grant to look after them for 20 years and a grant to eat them (RHI).

BPS is no longer linked to sheep, the only direct subsidy sheep get is a small headage scheme for upland producers. You can even plant ground and get BPS!

If an 'investor' buys a hill farm, then planting also liberates the shepherd's cottage as another income source, depriving the area of another working family in the community.

When the timber is sold, or the afforested land is sold, no tax is payable on any gain. So, again, sheep are discounted by a forestry benevolent government.

Scotland has never had so much forest cover in recorded times. A recent study showed that livestock value in terms of tourism and ancillary benefits to the Highlands and Islands alone was more than £500m.

People come to appreciate areas like the North Coast 500 for heather moors, green pasture and horny cows and flocks of sheep by the roadside, not to see block conifers. I am all for integrated forestry and groups like the Tweed Forum have shown how farmers can play their part in replacing the lost broadleaved and native woodlands, and riparian belts which commercial foresters are not so keen on.

But we must talk up the sheep job. It is now largely unsubsidised and fighting for critical mass to be maintained, when despite speculation it is showing itself to be a profitable industry with great potential. We have young people keen to invest their future in it and as an industry we should be sticking up for livestock farming because at the moment no retiree or 'investor' can have a choice of what to do. Conversely, government incentivises every aspect of forestry, whilst quickly made tenure law does nothing to encourage sensible lets to young farmers. Why?

Why an increase in trees, I ask Scotgov, without a full comparison to alternative land use benefits? It seems trees at all costs.

We need to sell the positive message that sheep farming is no longer the overstocked subsidy fed industry of 40 years ago. If anything, it is sheep which are trying to compete under commercial terms.

Scotland needs food, yet we import protein from parts of the world where virgin forest is felled. We can do our bit for carbon at home by having productive (and sustainable) farms.

We are a modern industry producing a product that there is a huge global demand for. It currently produces the best gross margin on a mixed farm and it keeps people working daily in rural communities.

Permanent pasture locks up carbon at more than 30t/ha annually in the right circumstances and wool is a hugely underplayed product in combating plastic use and locking carbon.

The skills required have been held and passed on in Scotland for more than 5000 years – government must recognise the importance of this because the only thing stopping our margins being favourable at this moment in time is a government incentive that rewards lethargy, or tree planting.

We must look at the potential of what has been the ignored jewel in Scotland's food and drink crown, Scotch lamb. Let the foresters argue for more planting, but do not talk our job down.

I am confident we have a vibrant future, but we need a level playing field with other land uses for our industry to thrive.

John Fyall

Chairman NSA Scotland.