MPs should think before opposing dairy unit

EVEN as this particular Westminster parliament wheezes to an end, there is still the odd gasp of life. It appears that about 40 MPs have signed an early day motion stating they are "firmly opposed" to a proposed dairy unit in Lincolnshire where it is planned 8,100 cows will be kept indoors for most of the year.

It notes the cows are likely to produce "extremely high" milk yields and links this to findings from the European Food Safety Authority that breeding for high milk yield is a major factor in poor animal welfare.

The MPs then profess that "pasture-based systems enable cows to express natural behaviour and this is linked to lower levels of lameness".

Finally, they urge retailers and producers of dairy products not to source milk from such large-scale intensive dairy units.

The problem for me in this motion is the danger that we might go down a road last travelled with the ban on tethering sows – a move that, according to one expert as recently as last week, effectively kicked the feet out from under the UK pig industry.

Do not get me wrong, I want top-quality welfare for all livestock. Like many others in the industry I was appalled by the cattle cruelty case featured in the newspapers last week and I applaud the verdict that will not allow the farmer involved to keep livestock for a long time.

But I do not want the UK farming industry to lead in animal welfare issues unless it is accompanied by other producing countries with similar regulations, or that has the support of the politicians, retailers, celebrity chefs and consumers; support that includes the banning of food produced under lower welfare standards and imported to this country.

Perhaps the MPs should organise a parliamentary trip to New Zealand to see the dairy industry there and thereafter post a motion or two on tail docking of cows and other Antipodean practices.

Perhaps they should have found out that there will be a vet on site at this development, where the aim is prevention of animal health problems.

The parliamentary motion also fails to define "large-scale" and "intensive". For the man with two cows, having 200 would be large-scale, but there are many Scottish herds that far exceed that tally. Do not forget, we lead Europe in the scale of our dairy herds.

And "intensive"? It could be argued that the move towards intensification in the dairy industry started more than a century ago when city dairies were introduced to prevent the then high incidence of rickets in our population. Perhaps one of those MPs who stuck their signature on this motion could explain just what she or he meant when they said "intensive."

And when they have explained that, perhaps they could tell us when they want cows to be housed instead, as their motion is slightly vague on the matter. After all any cows kept outdoors in the past couple of months might only have produced the odd icy cube of milk.

Away from Westminster, what is happening on the ground in the village of Nocton in Lincolnshire where the proposal has been lodged?

The villagers are reported to be divided. Some see the provision of 85 jobs in a rural area as a plus, others see the massive dairy as an invasion of their countryside.

Those that have inquiring minds have found out that there will not be 8,000 or so cattle blocking up their rural lanes twice a day as they go back and forward to be milked. The herds are to be split up into units of 500 cows apiece and they will be milked three times daily.

The next step on this proposal belongs to the local authority planning committee. It does not meet until 5 May.

The following day, the country is expected to go the polls to elect a new set of representatives for Westminster. I hope the new lot of MPs will be more thoughtful of the repercussions of their actions before they sign motions.