A bold proposal for sure but is this kind of intensive development good for the industry or will it simply draw negative attention that will ultimately harm the reputation of the whole sector?

Undoubtedly Nocton Dairies are not proposing anything wrong. There are plenty of herds where milking cows are continuously housed and there are many in the industry that would advocate this as a high welfare system because cows can be closely monitored and cared for. But this kind of approach does not necessarily chime well with consumers, who like to think of dairy farming as a pastoral enterprise with cows happily grazing. Already, emotive media coverage has spoken of ‘large scale factory farming’ in the same breath as ‘Nocton Dairies’.

But in fact their proposals are commercially sound and cow welfare should be exemplary, particularly when a full time vet will be on site – something that not many dairy units can lay claim to. The proposed development also has the potential to be a flagship for the dairy industry, something that other dairy farmers can learn from and be proud to be associated with.

Ultimately, one thing is for certain – this kind of enterprise will have a high profile and will attract attention towards dairy farming in a more direct way than we have perhaps ever seen before. The development therefore carries a huge reputational responsibility unlike that ever seen before on a UK farm. If Nocton Dairies is a successful business, with good welfare and performance standards then it will represent the very best of our dairy industry. But, should things go wrong, the problems will be hugely visible and this could have implications for every single farmer in the country. The public’s ignorance about farming may also be a threat and Nocton will have to be open and communicative to the public to garner support.

It will be interesting to see these exciting proposals develop in the coming months – for it is perhaps the first farming enterprise in this country where every farmer has a vested interest in it being successful.

The chemical companies have a lot to answer for.  How can they produce a chemical to be used on the land, without thinking through the consequences.  Surely someone, somewhere considered if there is no need to respray, then it clearly will not breakdown, and if it doesn’t break down where will it end up eventually.

The consequences for livestock on the farms, other animal such as horse and camelids that eat the hay and haylage and lastly the humans on the end of the food chain are very serious indeed.

Should we be eating the the meat of livestock that have grazed pasture which has been sprayed with this chemical?  If the chemical does not breakdown, will it be held in the bloodstream and muscle tissue of the animal ?

Horse owners are being advised not to allow there animals to eat hay or haylage which has been harvested from pasture treated with this chemical, which seems a senible precaution, but for how long?   This advise is given to break the chain and prevent the horse manure being used as a fertiliser on vegetable crops.  What is the chemical doing the the digestive system and health of the horses.  If you have horses, which produce quite a lot of manure, how will you dispose of your muck heaps?

The chemical companies website clearly advises that manure or compost which may contain residues of the hericide should not be used on produce which may be eaten.  The problems caused could be far reaching and land could be contaminated for years, nobody seems to know.

 Lets start the debate and put pressure on Mr Benn to look into and get some clear answers and advise on this problem.  If it works so effectively on the weeds, what is it doing to US?