YOUR article ‘Solar and biomass the future’ (Hereford Times, October 16, 2014) made illuminating reading.

The suggestion that renewable energy sources could ‘help feather the nests of Herefordshire broiler producers’ leads me to ask the following questions: l Why is the taxpayer contributing to the profits of poultry growers? The idea that taxpayer subsidy ‘restores poultry margins back to where they should be’ betrays the sense of entitlement such producers have about themselves.

In your article Mr Davies talks about ‘income from renewables’, but fails to mention that this is in the form of state-funded payments, guaranteed for 20 years. The costs of installing the systems are recovered after only six years – the rest is profit.

The original intention of renewable heat incentives was to encourage a move away from hydrocarbon usage; the result has been a subsidised gold rush which sees farmers in Herefordshire exploiting the system to improve profits.

l Why is Herefordshire County Council so eager to approve further chicken shed development? The council is ‘very positive about the overall economic impact and jobs that will arise’. What jobs? Two sheds housing 55,000 chicks each will require only one member of staff.

Increases in chicken shed numbers on existing sites do not add any additional directly employed jobs. The ‘economic impact’ is a negative one that is shouldered by the local community.

Astonishingly, these enormous chicken sheds, housing a highly industrialised process that can hardly be described as ‘farming’, attract no business rates or Section 106 contributions, and presumably they will be out of scope of Community Infrastructure Levy when that replaces Section 106.

‘Feathering the nests’ of wealthy farmers is a most apt way to describe this scandal: massive taxpayer subsidies, with no responsibilities towards the local community.

Burning biomass for subsidy – nice work if you can get it.

EMMA TELFORD Penn Grove Road Hereford