If the conservation lobby wants to know why it still sparks the occasional adverse reaction from farmers, I have the answer. It's because there are people like Ian Woodhurst who open their mouths without engaging their brains.

Mr Woodhurst's job description is 'senior farming campaigner' with the Campaign to Protect Rural England (previously the Council for the Protection of Rural England).

And while most people were applauding Hilary Benn's decision not to impose a compulsory set-aside scheme on farmers but to allow the industry to implement a voluntary one, his was one of the few voices raised in whingeing protest.

And why? Because he fears if grain prices rise the scheme could be undermined by farmers who "put profit before the environment".

Yes: that dirty word 'profit' yet again. The one thing farmers cannot, apparently, make without being branded ruthless money-grubbers by people with safe little jobs for life and nothing but an index-linked pension awaiting them when they've had enough.

This is the kind of crass statement which is guaranteed to unpick all those years of effort which have gone into ensuring farming and conservation can co-exist reasonably amicably.

Setting aide the fact that studies have already shown that British farmers are responsible for carrying out tens of millions of pounds worth of conservation work entirely unpaid in the course of a year what, precisely, is wrong with a farmer turning a profit, the same as any other businessman would expect to do?

No profit very soon means no farm, no farmer, and thus no conservation work. Even if the CPRE ordered all its staff and supporters out into the field to start hands-on conservation activities they wouldn't manage more than a tiny fraction of what farmers do, for no or little reward, in the course of a year.

And Mr Woodhurst would be well-advised to reflect on that before his next pronouncement.