By John Elliot

IF watching grain dry may not quite match watching paint dry, it does leave plenty of time for thought. Standing at the drier the day after Kelso Ram Sale, my thoughts strayed back to Kelso Ram Sales over my lifetime.

In my youth, Britain had just come through the Second World War and food was still rationed. Farmers were heroes and the Border Leicester was king.

Although their shepherds, themselves local celebrities, were often the power behind the throne, flock masters appeared at the sale in suits with roses in their button holes.

When I became more involved in the late sixties, the Suffolks were top dog. Many farmers like me did the sheep themselves. I remember well the quick change in the car park from dungarees into jacket and tie after the tups were sorted up and before customers appeared.

Today, many vendors don’t have a shepherd, carry a stick or even wear a tie.

Like flock masters at Kelso, has farmers’ images changed generally over fifty years? Are we now perceived by consumers and politicians, less as captains of industry and more as the biblical hewers of wood and drawers of water? Maybe even worse, as despoilers of the countryside and destroyers of wildlife, all the time with begging bowl in hand.

Does our image really matter? If we don’t want to get too hung up on buzzwords like missions, goals and image, is it important to give the future some thought even if it is simply looking at where we are, where we would like to be and the best way to get there?

High on the wish lists of farmers everywhere is the desire to get more of our income from the market. Second might be to get rid of troublesome and meaningless legislation which adds to our costs with no benefit to the consumer. Third would be to put the ever increasing disinformation from single issue groups where it belongs, in the dustbin.

Maybe this third is the most important of all as little progress will be made elsewhere until we get it sorted out. As long as farming is seen as harmful to the environment and home grown food is regarded as costly and irrelevant the future will be difficult and unprofitable.

Last week, The RSPB State of Nature Report, highlighted on Breakfast TV, showed that 120 species of wildlife in Britain were at risk due to modern farm practices. David Attenborough, an icon of decency and trust, confirmed that this was indeed so. Coincidently for the first time in several years I saw a hedgehog, one of the species quoted as being on the verge of extinction, on the farm.

Country folk know well that the decline in hedgehogs coincides with the huge increase in badgers, which, unlike foxes, can unroll a hedgehog and kill it.

Bumble bees, too, are reputedly becoming rarer. Holes in my lawn are evidence of badgers digging out their nests which other predators are unable to do. Raptors and songbirds have increased and decreased in numbers respectively at the same time and let us not forget about domestic cats.

Britain’s 8.1 million cats are responsible for the deaths of 55 million birds every year and have caused the extinction of 63 species of birds, mammals and reptiles.

A spokesman for the RSPB said: “Although cats kill millions of birds every year there is no evidence that this is the main cause of decline in any bird species in the UK.”

Another spokesman, on the radio, said that this was because cats mainly caught birds such as the blue tit which were not endangered. Why do these highly slanted reports appear in the media when farmers’ attempts to put the record straight are dismissed as “well they would say that?”

The answer is that the original item, however biased or even untrue, is news and the challenge is history. It is time now to move agriculture on to the front foot and to give farming an image of trust and good value.

We need a salesman or woman, adequately financed, who understands the power of the sound bite and who can get our retaliation in first.

The National Trust, The RSPB, The Soil Association, The Badger Trust and other single issue pressure groups tailor their message on pesticides, genetic modification and disappearing wildlife to attract the media, financial contributors and vote hungry politicians with consummate skill.

An added incentive is that they wish to divert some of the cash previously allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy from farmers to their own organisations. An indication of their success is that this week 36 Tory MPs have written to Theresa May to say that we should move support from food production to environmental enhancement.

In reply to this intense lobbying, the NFU has written to DEFRA Secretary, Andrea Leadsom to warn her of the consequences of ignoring food security. Well they would say that. What they should have done is pre-empt our detractors by outlining farmers worries that the real issue in many cases of wildlife loss is the upset of the balance of nature by single issue groups favouring one species over another. It is imperative that we find the right marketeers to communicate proactively a positive image of agriculture without delay.

Incidentally,farmers are not alone in having issues of public perception. Undertakers, or as they prefer to be called “funeral directors”, too are worried about their image.

At a seminar in USA a speaker chose this as his topic. He suggested that, as a goodwill gesture, a gift to deserving families might be appropriate.

By deserving families he meant doctors, hospital executives and others who might turn trade their way. A suitable gift might be a turkey at Christmas.

One recipient, the owner of an old folks home, felt that this had not been a complete success. In fact it had caused some uneasiness among his patients as the turkey had been delivered in a hearse.