Farmers

[Ked]

They're going daft across Europe.

So what is it about because given the scale of protest there's not much msm coverage.

Holland and Ireland as far as I can gather are downsizing farming production..

 

What's the view from you lot?

[Dawnrazor]

Just now, Ked said:

They're going daft across Europe.

So what is it about because given the scale of protest there's not much msm coverage.

Holland and Ireland as far as I can gather are downsizing farming production..

 

What's the view from you lot?

We'll not know the value of farmers and farming until they drop below a critical level, I honestly thought that two years ago when the Ukraine war say the price of wheat go through the roof, and the knock on effect of increased food prices, would have focused the mindset of politicians on food security, but no, the Welsh farmers are protesting about new conditions in the grant schemes that they will have to plant 10% of farms with trees, we cannot eat trees.

[Der Kaiser]

Don't like farmers.  If they see a lovely field with a family having a picnic, and there's a nice pond in it, they fill in the pond with concrete, they plough the family into the field, they blow up the tree, and use the leaves to make a dress for their wife who's also their brother.

 

[il Duce McTarkin]

We need more farmers imo

[henrysmithsgloves]

[Ked]

44 minutes ago, Der Kaiser said:

Don't like farmers.  If they see a lovely field with a family having a picnic, and there's a nice pond in it, they fill in the pond with concrete, they plough the family into the field, they blow up the tree, and use the leaves to make a dress for their wife who's also their brother.

 

Fair enough.

 

Farmers daughters though?

[Cade]

Industrialised farming methods were invented out of necessity during WW2.

They were vital in keeping nations fed during those times when supply chains were fecked.

They then kept developing and enlarging to feed the baby boom that came after the war.

 

Intensive farming methods do ruin the soil and the environment, and needs heavy uses of all sorts of chemicals.

Animals are kept in appalling conditions, are fed bits of other ground-up animals and injected with growth hormones.

Chemical and animal waste not only gets into the rivers but also seeps deep into the ground-water table.

Giant farms have destroyed the biodiversity of the countryside.

Giant fields of monoculture crops for miles and only tiny strips of sterile land dividing them.

 

Governments are now taking steps to lower the environmental impact of such methods.

As in nearly every other industry.

 

Farmers complain that their already wafer-thin margins will result in the costs of such schemes bankrupting them.
And this is probably true.

Their margins are only so thin because the supermarkets get away with paying them peanuts for their produce.

This has only made the already intensive farming methods even more intensive, with every single corner being cut and everything done as efficiently as possible.
There is no more fat to be trimmed.

 

Perhaps the Government should regulate what the Supermarkets pay the farmers, so the impact of the environmental regulations is lessened.

Or legislate to stop Supermarkets rejecting perfectly edible veg which gets pulped in gigantic quantities because it doesn't match their strict appearance standards.
Or come up with a scheme to promote local farmer's markets and farm produce delivery services, to cut the Supermarkets out and give Farmers another income source.
 

As with all protests these days, the farmers are being exploited by weirdos, conspiracy theorists and culture warriors and their legitimate concerns are being drowned out in ocean of faux outrage and daft publicity stunts.

 

Intensive farming has to change. Environmental impact must be taken into consideration.
But at the same time, farming livelihoods must be maintained, or indeed improved, by confronting and regulating the Supermarkets.

[trotter]

Clarkson is a polarizing individual. I personally like him, I can understand entirely why others don't. 

 

His Amazon show has opened the eyes to those that watched it to just how hard and financially ruinous farming is to keep food production. 

 

Farmers are a necessity to a healthy country. 

[Tommy Brown]

4 hours ago, Ked said:

Fair enough.

 

Farmers daughters though?

Normally have hairy armpits and beards.

[il Duce McTarkin]

4 hours ago, Cade said:

Farmers complain that their already wafer-thin margins will result in the costs of such schemes bankrupting them.
And this is probably true.

Their margins are only so thin because the supermarkets get away with paying them peanuts for their produce.

This has only made the already intensive farming methods even more intensive, with every single corner being cut and everything done as efficiently as possible.
There is no more fat to be trimmed.

 

Perhaps the Government should regulate what the Supermarkets pay the farmers, so the impact of the environmental regulations is lessened.

Or legislate to stop Supermarkets rejecting perfectly edible veg which gets pulped in gigantic quantities because it doesn't match their strict appearance standards.

 

Intensive farming has to change. Environmental impact must be taken into consideration.
But at the same time, farming livelihoods must be maintained, or indeed improved, by confronting and regulating the Supermarkets.

 

[ematsone]

6 hours ago, Der Kaiser said:

Don't like farmers.  If they see a lovely field with a family having a picnic, and there's a nice pond in it, they fill in the pond with concrete, they plough the family into the field, they blow up the tree, and use the leaves to make a dress for their wife who's also their brother.

 

Classic Partridge

 

[FWJ]

8 hours ago, Ked said:

Fair enough.

 

Farmers daughters though?

I stay in Perth now.

 

You’d want them on your side in a scrap.

[henrysmithsgloves]

5 hours ago, trotter said:

Clarkson is a polarizing individual. I personally like him, I can understand entirely why others don't. 

 

His Amazon show has opened the eyes to those that watched it to just how hard and financially ruinous farming is to keep food production. 

 

Farmers are a necessity to a healthy country. 

Like him too, I'm sure he took over the farm because it was advantageous for him to pay lower taxes 😆

[the posh bit]

12 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

We'll not know the value of farmers and farming until they drop below a critical level, I honestly thought that two years ago when the Ukraine war say the price of wheat go through the roof, and the knock on effect of increased food prices, would have focused the mindset of politicians on food security, but no, the Welsh farmers are protesting about new conditions in the grant schemes that they will have to plant 10% of farms with trees, we cannot eat trees.

 

Trees are pretty important though.

[Dawnrazor]

12 minutes ago, the posh bit said:

 

Trees are pretty important though.

In some places yes, but science shows that areas of heather moor captured more carbon than it does when trees were planted on it, trees aren't the panacea some think, the negative effects of commercial forestry is easily seen.

My point stands, you can't eat trees, food security should be a far higher priority.

https://news.mongabay.com/2020/08/in-the-scottish-moorlands-plots-planted-with-trees-stored-less-carbon-than-untouched-lands-study/

Edited March 1 by Dawnrazor

[Jim_Duncan]

17 minutes ago, the posh bit said:

 

Trees are pretty important though.

Politicians are tripping over themselves to promise tree-planting projects because it sounds good to the general public. The reality is that these projects can have negative, unintended consequences on all manner of other aspects of the ecological environment.

 

(Beaten to it by Dawnrazor!)

[Dawnrazor]

Just now, Jim_Duncan said:

Politicians are tripping over themselves to promise tree-planting projects because it sounds good to the general public. The reality is that these projects can have negative, unintended consequences on all manner of other aspects of the ecological environment.

 

(Beaten to it by Dawnrazor!)

👍

[Jim_Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

👍

There was a Radio 4 documentary or report about it a few years ago. It was incredible the damage that well-intentioned tree planting can have if the longer term impacts weren't taken into consideration.

[Dawnrazor]

7 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said:

There was a Radio 4 documentary or report about it a few years ago. It was incredible the damage that well-intentioned tree planting can have if the longer term impacts weren't taken into consideration.

Absolutely, but that information rarely gets out, unfortunately.

[Jim_Duncan]

1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said:

Absolutely, but that information rarely gets out, unfortunately.

Why do you think that is? Are folk just happy with 'tree planting = good" or are there vested interests (e.g. the big nurseries in Europe, the organisations receiving government funding, etc)?

[Dawnrazor]

Just now, Jim_Duncan said:

Why do you think that is? Are folk just happy with 'tree planting = good" or are there vested interests (e.g. the big nurseries in Europe, the organisations receiving government funding, etc)?

Difficult to say, shite on the Tele like countryfile pumping out this saccharine sweet image of the countryside doesn't help, green washing, big business being given tax breaks for forestry, carbon credits, the misinformation about trees being the saviour of the climate, governments pushing this erroneous view all adds up to the public not getting the correct info'.

There's and estate near me that had planted around 3000 acres of previously good, productive agricultural land producing food, with trees, that's 3000 acres of land that will catch less carbon that it did before it was planted, the only food it will produce is some venison as deer will multiply and have to be shot to protect the trees, Brown Hares have already all but been exterminated prior to planting, that's food production land that will, most likely, be lost for ever, the cost to reclaim land after trees were planted is astronomical.

It's a difficult one but food security is seldom talked about, despite it's importance. I've not go all the answers but I can see the problems.

[ehcaley]

Fecking Tory subsidy junkies!

[the posh bit]

1 hour ago, Dawnrazor said:

In some places yes, but science shows that areas of heather moor captured more carbon than it does when trees were planted on it, trees aren't the panacea some think, the negative effects of commercial forestry is easily seen.

My point stands, you can't eat trees, food security should be a far higher priority.

https://news.mongabay.com/2020/08/in-the-scottish-moorlands-plots-planted-with-trees-stored-less-carbon-than-untouched-lands-study/

 

1 hour ago, Jim_Duncan said:

Politicians are tripping over themselves to promise tree-planting projects because it sounds good to the general public. The reality is that these projects can have negative, unintended consequences on all manner of other aspects of the ecological environment.

 

(Beaten to it by Dawnrazor!)

 

Good posts 

[Morgan]

10 hours ago, Tommy Brown said:

Normally have hairy armpits and beards.

Doesn’t everyone nowadays?

[Morgan]

1 hour ago, ehcaley said:

Fecking Tory subsidy junkies!

[henrysmithsgloves]

5 minutes ago, Morgan said:

Doesn’t everyone nowadays?

He is talking about their wives 🤢

[Morgan]

2 minutes ago, henrysmithsgloves said:

He is talking about their wives 🤢

Never!

 

Thanks for clearing that up for me.  ❤️👍

[Tommy Brown]

33 minutes ago, Morgan said:

Doesn’t everyone nowadays?

 

23 minutes ago, Morgan said:

Never!

 

Thanks for clearing that up for me.  ❤️👍

I was just recalling the farmers wives that sent in their collection to Razzle.

Normally in the hay barn or corn field.

 

I'm obviously making this up. As I would never look at a Razzle magazine 

[henrysmithsgloves]

3 hours ago, Morgan said:

Never!

 

Thanks for clearing that up for me.  ❤️👍

 

[superjack]

6 hours ago, Jim_Duncan said:

Why do you think that is? Are folk just happy with 'tree planting = good" or are there vested interests (e.g. the big nurseries in Europe, the organisations receiving government funding, etc)?

Up here in Lewis, and probably the samenin all crofting communities, crofters are offered large grants for tree planting. I've been thinking about it for my croft as I can't be arsed putting animals on it (too much like hard work). Our croft is approximately 6 acres. My mates croft is slightly bigger and he got a decent 5 figure sum for planting the trees and also gets an annual subsidy. As you can guess, it's quite popular up here.

[Dawnrazor]

7 minutes ago, superjack said:

Up here in Lewis, and probably the samenin all crofting communities, crofters are offered large grants for tree planting. I've been thinking about it for my croft as I can't be arsed putting animals on it (too much like hard work). Our croft is approximately 6 acres. My mates croft is slightly bigger and he got a decent 5 figure sum for planting the trees and also gets an annual subsidy. As you can guess, it's quite popular up here.

Years ago Crofts were a means if survival, literally, not a lot a Tesco deliveries coming over from the mainland!! Unfortunately, Crofts going under trees means less Crofts for people in the future. Life's got easier.

[superjack]

2 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Years ago Crofts were a means if survival, literally, not a lot a Tesco deliveries coming over from the mainland!! Unfortunately, Crofts going under trees means less Crofts for people in the future. Life's got easier.

A lot of crofts lie unused now. Ours has sheep on it, my mate uses it. I'd maybe consider keeping hens, but not while I work full time and the wife is a lazy ****. I will definitely be putting up a polycrub in a few years and grow stuff as well. Sheep, pigs or cattle? No chance. I'm a city boy at heart, not an adopted sheep shagger.

[Dawnrazor]

11 minutes ago, superjack said:

A lot of crofts lie unused now. Ours has sheep on it, my mate uses it. I'd maybe consider keeping hens, but not while I work full time and the wife is a lazy ****. I will definitely be putting up a polycrub in a few years and grow stuff as well. Sheep, pigs or cattle? No chance. I'm a city boy at heart, not an adopted sheep shagger.

I think that's such a shame that Crofts are going unused. A Polly Tunnel would b a good idea, at least it can be taken away when a change of land use is taking place, surely there are people looking to take on unused land to increase stock numbers?

[superjack]

14 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

I think that's such a shame that Crofts are going unused. A Polly Tunnel would b a good idea, at least it can be taken away when a change of land use is taking place, surely there are people looking to take on unused land to increase stock numbers?

Unfortunately not enough. When I first moved into this house 23 years back, in the summer, the common grazings land always had plenty of sheep on it. You're lucky of there's a quarter of them now. I get the impression (my own, no facts that I know of) that for every young person starting crofting, a couple of older crofters die off. There was a scheme started before I moved up where unised Crofts were taken back and given new crofters. Although it still happens occasionally, you don't hear of it happening that often.

The croft we're on has been in the father in laws family since our village was split into Crofts on the 17th century, and it's the same with quite a few in our village. That's why I do intend to use it in someway, but only when I finish working full time.

[ehcaley]

4 hours ago, Morgan said:

Ok,there will be a few who aren't Tories!

[Dawnrazor]

10 minutes ago, ehcaley said:

Ok,there will be a few who aren't Tories!

I think it because, traditional voting patterns, and that Labour are definitely an urban centric party.