DOCSLIB.ORG

Review of Home Farm, Temple Newsam Scrutiny Inquiry Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review of Home Farm, Temple Newsam Scrutiny Inquiry Report Review of Home Farm, Temple Newsam Scrutiny Inquiry Report 1 Review of Home Farm, Temple Newsam Inquiry Report Published 18 th May 2011 Introduction and Scope the outcome of the consultation and to Introduction submit a report and recommendations to 1. The Scrutiny Board (City Development) the Scrutiny Board in May 2011 for at its meeting on 8 th March 2011 consideration. It was also agreed that considered requests for scrutiny of the representatives from the Rare Breed farming operations at Home Farm, Survival Trust and Rare Breeds Temple Newsam. The requests for International be invited to the meeting of scrutiny were from the Rare Breed the working group. Survival Trust, Rare Breeds International, the Shetland Cattle 6. The working group’s findings which are Breeders Association, the White Park endorsed by full Scrutiny Board and Cattle Society and a number of recommendations are presented below. individuals who feared for the future of Home Farm and the rare breed centre. Scope of the Inquiry 2. They were responding to the City Development Directorate’s “Farming 7. The purpose of our inquiry was to Operations Consultation” document identify areas of savings that would which had been circulated in December allow Home Farm to continue as a 2010 to all key stakeholders and other commercial working farm whilst also interested parties. This stated that continuing as a visitor and rare breed “savings” needed to be made at Home centre. Farm, suggested ways this could be achieved and invited comments and alternative proposals. Anticipated Service Impact 3. At the Scrutiny Board meeting on 8 th March 2011 Parks and Countryside 8. We hope that the working group’s officers reported that as a consequence findings, and the Scrutiny Board’s of their consultation with key recommendations, will have a positive stakeholders several areas for further impact on the service by maintaining consideration had emerged as to how Home Farm as a commercially viable savings could be achieved without operation whilst also maintaining the closing the farming operation. visitor and rare breed centres but at a reduced operating cost and maximising 4. It was reported that at the Council all available resources. budget meeting in February 2011 it had been agreed that the operating budget 9. We also hope to see more Leeds of Home Farm, Temple Newsam would schools considering using the Home be reduced by £100k in 2010/11 but Farm visitor centre as a resource for was left open to the City Development their pupils. Directorate to determine how this should be achieved. 5. It was agreed at the Scrutiny Board meeting on 8 th March 2011 to establish a time limited working group to consider 2 Review of Home Farm, Temple Newsam Inquiry Report Published 18 th May 2011 Conclusions and Recommendations statement draws out those costs which Accounts of Home are presently contained within the Farm broader cost centres of Temple Newsam, Lotherton Hall and P & C 10. We were advised that whilst the Workshops. livestock are a key part of the visitor attraction, the numbers on display at 13. The salient conclusions that we drew Home Farm only represent a small from analysing the information provided proportion of the total managed. Most in appendix 1 are: farming operations are conducted either on a commercial basis or to sustain the • The gross operating expenditure in rare breed herd. The result is a net cost 2009/10 was £563k of which staffing to the Council of £347k each year. costs amounted to 60% of the total. 11. We understand from the accounts • The net operating cost was £347k presented to us that the true income and once overheads and income had expenditure that is attributable to the been accounted for. management of Temple Newsam Farm 14. The table in appendix 2 summarises and other external agricultural holdings total farm income over the last 7 years. held by Parks & Countryside (P & C) is at present spread across 5 separate 15. We noted that when operating costs cost centres which are listed in the table from the last financial year are below. A full print out of these accounts considered against average income, the was provided to us and these included net operating cost would be reduced to total spending in the previous financial £332.5k. Notwithstanding that, it should year, the budget for the 2010/11 be noted that when considered over a financial year, and then spending longer time frame, a major source of against these same headings for this income is received from paying visitors financial year. to the farm. Given that P & C has already sought to increase income by Cost Centres removing subsidised entrance fees to Temple Newsam Farm for Leeds card 22144 Temple Newsam Farm Account holders, where possible operating costs 22149 Temple Newsam Estate Account should be reduced to meet the revised 22148 Lotherton Hall Estate budget figures. 22152 Temple Newsam Fees Account 22892 P & C Financing Charges 16. What became clear to us during our discussions was that the accounts as presented were complicated and difficult 12. In addition to the account statements, a to understand. Often it was unclear what summary of each of the 5 costs centres percentage allocations had been were provided to us and is set out in included under the various cost centres appendix 1. This document clearly and why. The reasons for the accounts defines all applicable income and being presented in this way were largely expenditure that can be attributed to the historic and include Lotherton Hall. farming operations undertaken by Parks and Countryside. Furthermore, this 3 Review of Home Farm, Temple Newsam Inquiry Report Published 18 th May 2011 Conclusions and Recommendations 17. We strongly recommend that the would not experience a accounts for Home Farm are simplified diminished offer from their visit to to show more readily income and Temple Newsam. expenditure for the farm and which excludes all other operations. b) Rare Breed Survival Trust(RBST) • RBST would prefer the following Recommendation 1 breeds to be retained at Temple Newsam That the Acting Director of City Development ensure that the Cattle: Vaynols, Gloucesters, accounts for Home Farm are Shetland simplified to show more readily income and expenditure for the Sheep: Boreray (as rare as farm and which excludes all other Vaynols), White Faced operations. Woodlands, Norfolk Horns and Portlands • RBST guidelines for a minimum breeding group size to be Consultation Findings effective are five cows and 1 bull, and 15 ewes and 1 ram. 18. A copy of the consultation document is attached as appendix 3. We were • RBST have also facilitated visits provided with a summary of the key for officers to farm parks at both findings from the consultation process, Sandwell Park and Tatton Park in categorised under each consultee. order to obtain data and understanding to enable a) Temple Newsam Ward Members comparison between these • Ward Members were unanimous successful farm parks and Home in commending the value of the Farm, Temple Newsam. farm to their constituents and in c) Sandwell Farm and Tatton Farm emphasising the need to preserve and enhance the farm • Both operate on a smaller scale as a visitor attraction. in terms of livestock, land holdings and staff when • Similarly, Members sought considered in comparison to comfort that any proposal to Temple Newsam. reduce the volume of land farmed at Temple Newsam was not • Farm staff undertake a visitor being driven by an aspiration to service function in addition to develop part of the estate. daily farming duties. • In light of the budget pressures, • Both seek to exploit voluntary Members accepted that savings labour to bolster and support were inevitable and they desired specialist farm staff. comfort from officers that visitors to the farm and the wider estate 4 Review of Home Farm, Temple Newsam Inquiry Report Published 18 th May 2011 Conclusions and Recommendations • Both sites rely on hired support ◊ Sales per hectare are for fodder production. significantly lower, by a factor of 3 to 7 times d) Lineham Farm ◊ Labour cost, whether per • The trustees at Lineham Farm hectare or per £100 turnover, is have confirmed that they are higher by a factor of 15 to 25 comfortable with Leeds City times. Council no longer farming the land adjacent to the centre. Visitor Attraction Subsequently, both the management and the charity’s 19. We take the view that Home Farm trustees have confirmed their cannot be seen in isolation from the interest in extending the visitor and rare breed centres as they landholding to include land complement one another and work as a presently farmed by P & C. whole. The loss of the farm would inevitably reduce visitor numbers. e) Farm Management and Staff 20. We felt strongly that part of the appeal • Staff have identified areas in of Home Farm was that people were which they feel livestock numbers visiting a working farm and not a petting can be reduced. farm that uses animals as displays. f) Other Research 21. We should seek to ensure that we maximise all grants and subsidies that • Some limited benchmark are available. comparisons have been obtained with reference to the Farm 22. We strongly oppose any proposal that Business Survey (backed by the would cease commercial farming Government Department operations as suggested in the responsible for agriculture). It Consultation Document. should be noted that this survey is based on commercial farms Recommendation 2 and that Temple Newsam has a unique operational context with That the Acting Director of City extra labour implications Development considers engaging a associated with the breed mix, so consultant to look specifically at the benchmarking data is mainly a pointer for further investigation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE CROFTER, December 20131
    1 THE CROFTER, DECEMBER 20131 Scottish Crofting Federation THE CROFTER rooted in our communities The journal of the Scottish Crofting Federation, the only member-led organisation dedicated to the promotion of crofting and the largest association of small-scale food producers in the UK DECEMBER 2013 Number 101 Did the 2010 Questions on Scottish Act equalise availability of Government land sale policy OLLOWING THE Scottish Government's expressing an interest in the land, when, as crofting grants? decision to withdraw part of its Rosal the sales particulars were keen to point out, Fforest estate in Sutherland from communities were cleared from this land and open market sale after public criticism, the it is a deserted wilderness. ROFTING-SPECIFIC grants, SCF asked the government to examine its Putting this land on the market in this way is namely CCAGS and CHGS, policies on the sale of public land, community simply perpetuating a system of land ownership were expected to be extended to ownership and the creation of new crofts. concentrated into few hands, a system the C SCF chair Derek Flyn believes the Rosal Scottish people want to see changed.” owner-occupier crofters by virtue of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. case demonstrates some of the problems He continued “A great deal of effort and The former scheme provides grants caused by the manner in which the Forestry public money has been invested in reforming towards agricultural developments such Commission conducts the process of land crofting. The SG has pledged its commitment as sheds, barns, fencing and other sale. He said: “There is no surprise that to the crofting system and has legislated to permanent improvements; the latter local communities did not come forward Continued on page 3 towards the building of a croft house.
    [Show full text]
  • CATAIR Appendix
    CBP and Trade Automated Interface Requirements Appendix: PGA February 12, 2021 Pub # 0875-0419 Contents Table of Changes .................................................................................................................................................... 4 PG01 – Agency Program Codes ........................................................................................................................... 18 PG01 – Government Agency Processing Codes ................................................................................................... 22 PG01 – Electronic Image Submitted Codes.......................................................................................................... 26 PG01 – Globally Unique Product Identification Code Qualifiers ........................................................................ 26 PG01 – Correction Indicators* ............................................................................................................................. 26 PG02 – Product Code Qualifiers........................................................................................................................... 28 PG04 – Units of Measure ...................................................................................................................................... 30 PG05 – Scientific Species Code ........................................................................................................................... 31 PG05 – FWS Wildlife Description Codes ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Complaint Report
    EXHIBIT A ARKANSAS LIVESTOCK & POULTRY COMMISSION #1 NATURAL RESOURCES DR. LITTLE ROCK, AR 72205 501-907-2400 Complaint Report Type of Complaint Received By Date Assigned To COMPLAINANT PREMISES VISITED/SUSPECTED VIOLATOR Name Name Address Address City City Phone Phone Inspector/Investigator's Findings: Signed Date Return to Heath Harris, Field Supervisor DP-7/DP-46 SPECIAL MATERIALS & MARKETPLACE SAMPLE REPORT ARKANSAS STATE PLANT BOARD Pesticide Division #1 Natural Resources Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Insp. # Case # Lab # DATE: Sampled: Received: Reported: Sampled At Address GPS Coordinates: N W This block to be used for Marketplace Samples only Manufacturer Address City/State/Zip Brand Name: EPA Reg. #: EPA Est. #: Lot #: Container Type: # on Hand Wt./Size #Sampled Circle appropriate description: [Non-Slurry Liquid] [Slurry Liquid] [Dust] [Granular] [Other] Other Sample Soil Vegetation (describe) Description: (Place check in Water Clothing (describe) appropriate square) Use Dilution Other (describe) Formulation Dilution Rate as mixed Analysis Requested: (Use common pesticide name) Guarantee in Tank (if use dilution) Chain of Custody Date Received by (Received for Lab) Inspector Name Inspector (Print) Signature Check box if Dealer desires copy of completed analysis 9 ARKANSAS LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY COMMISSION #1 Natural Resources Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 (501) 225-1598 REPORT ON FLEA MARKETS OR SALES CHECKED Poultry to be tested for pullorum typhoid are: exotic chickens, upland birds (chickens, pheasants, pea fowl, and backyard chickens). Must be identified with a leg band, wing band, or tattoo. Exemptions are those from a certified free NPIP flock or 90-day certificate test for pullorum typhoid. Water fowl need not test for pullorum typhoid unless they originate from out of state.
    [Show full text]
  • ACE Appendix
    CBP and Trade Automated Interface Requirements Appendix: PGA August 13, 2021 Pub # 0875-0419 Contents Table of Changes .................................................................................................................................................... 4 PG01 – Agency Program Codes ........................................................................................................................... 18 PG01 – Government Agency Processing Codes ................................................................................................... 22 PG01 – Electronic Image Submitted Codes .......................................................................................................... 26 PG01 – Globally Unique Product Identification Code Qualifiers ........................................................................ 26 PG01 – Correction Indicators* ............................................................................................................................. 26 PG02 – Product Code Qualifiers ........................................................................................................................... 28 PG04 – Units of Measure ...................................................................................................................................... 30 PG05 – Scientific Species Code ........................................................................................................................... 31 PG05 – FWS Wildlife Description Codes ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shetland Cattle: Breed Analysis Report; December 2016
    Shetland Cattle: Breed Analysis Report; December 2016 Lawrence Alderson [email protected] The first annual report appeared fifteen years ago and usually has followed a standard pattern. During that time some items have deviated very little. For example, the contributions of founder animals have shown very small variations and can be reviewed safely at longer intervals provided that a close watch is kept on any line or family that threatens to disappear. The previous two reports also dealt in some detail with explanations and evaluations of topics such as inbreeding, GCI, and diversity. Therefore this year the focus will be more on items that members are able to use in the development of breeding programmes taking into account not only decisions at an individual herd (or even animal) level, but also those that affect the ongoing genetic security of the breed. Once again I’m grateful for the input of all those who have assisted in providing the information necessary to prepare the report, especially Peter Hardman who does the initial number crunching. Information on bulls used in 2016 (and intended to use in 2017) is particularly helpful and the work of Paddy Zakaria in the northern areas and Alan Yarker and Barry Allen in England and Wales makes my task much easier. The report follows the approximate format of previous years in order to enable easy comparison. The first (historical) section deals with population trends, genetic analyses and analysis of the 2015 calf crop. The second (future action) section deals with bull selection and calf crops from 2017 and onwards.
    [Show full text]
  • Breed Analysis Report 2014
    Shetland Cattle: Breed Analysis Report; November 2014 Lawrence Alderson [email protected] Although we kept track of the population of Shetland cattle previously, the systematic regular analysis of the annual calf crop did not begin until 2001. Since that time it has been possible to have a clearer understanding of the structure of the breed and to identify any potential problems or note preferred breeding plans. Last year I reviewed progress during the decade 2003-2012, but in this report I have taken the opportunity to extend the comparisons to cover the whole period 2001-2013. Some of the news is good, while some issues deserve more critical evaluation, but hopefully the report will enable useful decisions to be taken at both breed and herd level. Although I write the report it is a team effort which has relied on help and cooperation from Alan Yarker, Peter Hardman, Paddy Zakaria, Albin Smith, Barry and Cath Allen and many other members who provided information. The report follows the approximate format of previous years in order to facilitate easy comparison. Population trends Annual calf registrations are the preferred indicator of a breed’s security and easier to record than the number of breeding cows or other measures. Total registrations in 2001 were 170, although FMD undermined confidence in that year. Numbers increased in the next few years as the breed continued to expand, but the impact of the economic downturn of 2007/8 was a setback which is reflected in the reduced registrations in 2009 (Figure 1), and thereafter a more rigorous application of commercial values led to more delayed registrations and crossbreeding.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Genetic Resources Information Bulletin
    i CONTENTS EDITORIAL ........................................................................................................................................... iii GUIDE TO CONTRIBUTORS ................................................................................................................ v RUMINANT LIVESTOCK GENETIC RESOURCES IN CYPRUS A. Constantinou ..................................................................................................................................... 1 THE NATIVE PIG OF SRI LANKA R. Rajamahendran, V. Ravindran, L.A. Goonewardene, P. Sahaayaruban and A.S.B. Rajaguru ............. 9 THE BARROSO CATTLE OF GUATEMALA R. A. Melgar, Romeo Solano and Jorge De Alba ................................................................................. 15 HUNGARIAN ACTIVITIES ON THE CONSERVATION OF DOMESTIC ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES Imre Bodó ............................................................................................................................................ 19 PRESERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF ONGOLE CATTLE Mullapudi Narendra Nath ..................................................................................................................... 27 THE CONSERVATION OF ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES IN GREAT BRITAIN Lawrence Alderson .............................................................................................................................. 31 NEWS ITEMS .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry
    Yale Agrarian Studies Series James C. Scott, series editor 6329 Dohner / THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HISTORIC AND ENDANGERED LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY BREEDS / sheet 1 of 528 Tseng 2001.11.19 14:07 Tseng 2001.11.19 14:07 6329 Dohner / THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HISTORIC AND ENDANGERED LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY BREEDS / sheet 2 of 528 Janet Vorwald Dohner 6329 Dohner / THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HISTORIC AND ENDANGERED LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY BREEDS / sheet 3 of 528 The Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds Tseng 2001.11.19 14:07 6329 Dohner / THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HISTORIC AND ENDANGERED LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY BREEDS / sheet 4 of 528 Copyright © 2001 by Yale University. Published with assistance from the Louis Stern Memorial Fund. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. Designed by Sonia L. Shannon Set in Bulmer type by Tseng Information Systems, Inc. Printed in the United States of America by Jostens, Topeka, Kansas. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dohner, Janet Vorwald, 1951– The encyclopedia of historic and endangered livestock and poultry breeds / Janet Vorwald Dohner. p. cm. — (Yale agrarian studies series) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-300-08880-9 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Rare breeds—United States—Encyclopedias. 2. Livestock breeds—United States—Encyclopedias. 3. Rare breeds—Canada—Encyclopedias. 4. Livestock breeds—Canada—Encyclopedias. 5. Rare breeds— Great Britain—Encyclopedias.
    [Show full text]
  • 65 3.2.2 South West 3.2.2.1 EXMOOR
    3.2.2 South West 3.2.2.1 EXMOOR LOCATION, LANDSCAPE AND LAND COVER Straddling the border between Devon and Somerset, the Exmoor National Park covers an area of 693km². “The central moorlands are a landscape of grass, heather and bilberry, largely devoid of settlement. Their remote upland character is emphasised by wandering groups of Exmoor ponies and occasional glimpses of red deer. On the outer edges of Exmoor and the Brendon Hills, heather moorland is common but the central areas of Exmoor are often seemingly vast sheets of purple moor grass, bleached almost white for much of the year. Hutton describes this landscape as 'a bare rolling waste very like the sea, with its long heaving monotony of grey water, without a voice, without life and without human habitation, there is only the sound of wind and of running water'. In the south, at the transition to the Culm, the moorland is wetter and more fragmented, with gorse, bracken and heather.” (Natural England JCA 145) Unlike Bodmin and Dartmoor, where the bulk of the moorland is common land, here the commons (see Fig 3.18) account for only 4,811ha (about a quarter of the total moorland area). The major block of common land (around 1,750ha) lies to the northwest, on the Devon side of the border, and forms part of the North Exmoor SSSI. The other significant areas of common are Dunkery Hill (644ha and at 519m the highest point on Exmoor), Withypool Common (787ha) and Winsford Hill (586ha), the last 2 being part of the South Exmoor SSSI.
    [Show full text]
  • 137 New Places for "Old Spots": the Changing Geographies of Domestic Livestock Animals Richard Yarwood and Nick Evans1
    137 New Places for "Old Spots": The Changing Geographies of Domestic Livestock Animals Richard Yarwood and Nick Evans1 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, WORCESTER, UNITED KINGDOM This paper considers the real and imagined geographies of livestock animals. In doing so, it reconsiders the spatial relationship between people and domesticated farm animals. Some consideration is given to the origins of domestication and comparisons are drawn between the natural and domesticated geographies of animals. The paper mainly focuses on the contemporary geographies of livestock animals and, in particular, "rare breeds" of British livestock animals. Attention is given to the spatial relationship these animals have with people and the place of these animals in the British countryside today. The paper concludes by highlighting why it is important to consider livestock animal breeds as part of on-going research into the geographies of domestic livestock animals. Geographers have a long history of studying the spatial distributions of wild. domestic, and domesticated animals (Philo, 1995; Wolch & Emel, 1995); but, recently, there has been renewed interest in the geographies of domestication. Attempts have been made to re-appraise spatial relationships between human and nonhuman animals in a less anthropocentric manner. Tuan (1984), Anderson (1995), Philo (1995) and Wolch, West and Gaines (1995) have argued that animals. their habits, and their habitats are socially constructed in order to fit in and around particular urban places. This work has led to a reconsideration of animal geography and the ways in which it has been studied. In particular, there has been a shift away from mapping animal distributions towards a more culturally-informed approach which attempts to consider animals "as animals" (Philo, 1995, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Bison (BIS) Camelid (Camelid) Cattle (BOV)
    Bison (BIS) Camelid (Camelid) American bison X AE Alpaca (Lama pacos) AL Bison bison BIS Llama (Lama glama) LL Plains Bison PB Dromedary Camel (Camelus dromedarius) DC Wood Bison WB Bactrian Camel (Camelus bactrianus) BC Cattle (BOV) Aberdeen Angus AN Beefmaster cattle breed BM Abondance AB Belarus Red cattle breed VB Africander AF Belgian Blue cattle breed BB Alberes EE Belgian Red cattle breed BRC Alentejana AJ Belgian Red Pied cattle CP Allmogekor AO Belgian White and Red cattle breed DX American Bucking Bull MB Belmont Adaptaur cattle breed BT American White Park AWP Belmont Red cattle breed RQ Amerifax AM Belted Galloway cattle breed BG Amrit Mahal zebu AH Bengali cattle breed IG Anatolian Black AQ Berrendas cattle breed EB Andalusian Black AD Bhagnari cattle breed BHA Andalusian Blond AI Black Angus cattle breed BAN Andalusian Gray AV Black Maximizer BX Angeln AG Black Welsh cattle breed WB Angus Plus AP Blacksided Trondheim and Norland cattle breed TR Ankina AK Blanco Orejinegro cattle breed OJ Ankole AL Blonde d’Aquitaine BD Ankole-Watusi AW Bonsmara cattle breed NS Argentine Criollo AC Boran cattle breed ON Asturian Mountain AT Bordelais OR Aubrac AU Bos grunniens GX Aulie-Ata cattle breed AA Bos taurus indicus ZX Australian Braford X zebu ZA Bos taurus X Bison bison hybrid cattle breed BE Australian Friesian Sahiwal X zebu AS Braford X zebu cattle breed BO Australian Lowline cattle breed LO Brahma cattle breed BR Australian Milking Zebu X zebu AZ Brahmanstein ZH Ayrshire AY Brahmental BHM Bachaur BC Brahmousin X zebu cattle breed
    [Show full text]
  • Except Manx Loghtan and Shetland
    Weald & Downland Open Air Museum Singleton, Chichester, West Sussex Singleton Show for Rare & Traditional Breeds 30th Anniversary Sunday 19 July 2015 Showground opens 8 am Judging commences at I0 am Grand Parade of Ist Prize winners and Best of Breed Champions 4 pm Schedule and Prize List For Sheep, Cattle, Goats, Pigs, Fleeces, Handspun and Young Handlers Entries to: The Show Secretary Singleton Show for Rare and Traditional Breeds Weald & Downland Open Air Museum Singleton, Chichester, West Sussex, P018 0EU Telephone: (01243) 811363 email: [email protected] Closing date for entries: 30th June 2015 (Entries received after this date may not be printed in the Show programme) BREEDS ELIGIBLE FOR SHOWING CLASSES SHEEP Primitives: Boreray, Castlemilk Moorit, HebrideanT, Icelandic, North Ronaldsay, Soay, Manx Loaghtan, ShetlandC. Down: Devon Closewool, Dorset Down, Dorset Horn, LleynC, Oxford DownT, Ryeland*,Coloured RyelandT, Shropshire, Southdown, Wiltshire HornT. Longwool: Cotswold, Greyface Dartmoor, Devon & Cornwall, Lincoln Longwool Leicester & Black Leicester Longwool Teeswater, Wensleydale. Guest Breed Polworth and Gotland Heath or Hill: Balwen, Black Welsh MountainC, HerdwickC, Hill Radnor, Kerry HillT, Llanwenog, Norfolk HornC, Portland, Torddu C, Torwen C, White Face DartmoorT. Whitefaced Woodland. Jacob C CATTLE Beef: Shorthorn,C Belted GallowayC, White Galloway, British WhiteT, LonghornT, White Park Hereford N, HighlandN SussexC, Dairy DexterC, Gloucester, Irish Moiled, Kerry, or Dual Northern Dairy Shorthorn, Red Poll, Shetland, purpose: Vaynol. GOATS Bagot, Golden Guernsey, English C, Pygmy C. PIGS British Lop, Middle White, Tamworth, Berkshire, Large Black, Gloucester Old Spot, British Saddleback, Welsh, Oxford Sandy and Black C. All breeds are rare except where marked T Traditional, N Native stock of pure British descent at risk, i.e.
    [Show full text]