Discuss The Archers  permalink

Not keen

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 51 - 78 of 78
  • Message 51

    , in reply to message 50.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Thursday, 17th November 2011

    >I'm afraid I don't remember *them* having anything to do with applying for a grant; I thought that was Annabelle, when BL got involved, as was the negotiation about how much they would be able to sell their electricity for (not enough, I seem to remember).<

    The grant was always fundamental to the business case which modelled the returns the investors would get from their investment - in other words the scheme was only financially attractive when a (iirc 40%) grant from the govt was included. Just because someone else in the partnership/joint venture applied for the grant did not mean that the DD wouldn't benefit from it - they would have done.

    And the DD would have had the money for their share of the scheme - they would have borrowed it but their returns would still have been excellent because of the 40% grant.

    The reason none of them went ahead with the digester in the end was that a plan for a digester was agreed in the same area which would be ready to start work earlier than anything that could be done in Ambridge and any govt grant available in the local area would go to that scheme and not to the Ambridge one. So the lack of a grant was the final straw. Though whether the DD withdrew before then I don't remember.

    Report message1

  • Message 52

    , in reply to message 51.

    Posted by Lee Shore (U14673711) on Thursday, 17th November 2011

    Is it evil to make any profits from any farming actvity? Seems to me that other than BL and Home farm no one makes a bean out of it. Seems to be at subsistance level so there is little investment and other than the unmentionables the farms are becoming less and less efficient. At this rate our food miles will shoot up as imports increase.

    The toy farmers markets could never ever hope to sustain our current population.

    Report message2

  • Message 53

    , in reply to message 52.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Thursday, 17th November 2011

    >Is it evil to make any profits from any farming activity?<

    I don't know why you're asking that question. I was simply pointing out that the biodigester was only viable when it was subsidised to the tune of 40% (iirc) by the taxpayer.

    I think you'll find a large wodge of BL's and Home Farm's profits also come from the taxpayer.

    Given the taxpayer is required to support farming I think we're entitled to have a say over the form of the farming that is carried out.

    Report message3

  • Message 54

    , in reply to message 50.

    Posted by fellman (U14848647) on Thursday, 17th November 2011

    As I remember it, the problem was that the "bio-fuel" idea started out as Debbie's latest scheme for Home Farm; they were not large enough for it to work, so Adam talked David and Ruth into it as well. Then it still wasn't going to be economically viable (it was going to cost six hundred thousand pounds to set up, which they didn't have) so Brian pulled in Borchester Land, and Matt got in on the act. In order to qualify for a grant Matt wanted it to be enormous and to import other people's waste in large quantities, which had not been the Archers' idea of the matter at.all They had agreed when it was going to be small; when Matt's ideas about it got bigger and bigger as the year went on, they got less and less happy about it and finally said that they wanted no more to do with it.

    They also didn't like the idea of growing crops just to feed the digester.

    I'm afraid I don't remember *them* having anything to do with applying for a grant; I thought that was Annabelle, when BL got involved, as was the negotiation about how much they would be able to sell their electricity for (not enough, I seem to remember).

    So I'm sorry, but I don't see not going ahead with it as being hypocrisy; if anything, it was in keeping with their not wanting to turn a farm into a cattle-factory. 
    I remember it this way too Chris and MLers may call call the two of them Dopey's - possibly with justification sometimes but not I think hypocritical as they have remained largely loyal to Phil's concept of traditional farming methods with only some hi tech tweaking in grazing and feeding regimes.

    Report message4

  • Message 55

    , in reply to message 54.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Thursday, 17th November 2011

    Crikey Fellman, so you don't remember the DD being sold the digester on the basis of the grant either?

    Actually, they were.

    And it wasn't the DD who objected to growing crops for the biodigester, it was Pat & Tony who refused to join the venture.

    The DD withdrew because the project became larger under Matt's influence than DD had promised in his crayon-powerpoint presentation in TVH. There were no ethics involved in the decision, just a dislike of Matt.

    Report message5

  • Message 56

    , in reply to message 53.

    Posted by Lee Shore (U14673711) on Thursday, 17th November 2011

    I can't be sure but didn't Brian once say that he would prefer to farm free of subsidies. I think at the time he knew he could farm his land efficiently to make decent profits without and free himself from the tiresome paperwork.

    Oh,yes, just another thought about Home Farm. It surely would need secretarial help to keep on top of the paperwork. Another lecherous avenue opens for the SW's to enthral us with.

    Report message6

  • Message 57

    , in reply to message 56.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    Yes Brian did say that, it's what one or two of the East Anglian grain barons have said over the years.

    Of course Brian doesn't have to claim any subsidies if he doesn't like the tiresome paperwork - he messed up a claim one year and lost £120k but as he said to Robert, who had recently lost his business, it didn't matter.

    And you're right, someone like Brian would have a secretary, even if only part time, but you'd have to be quite intrepid to cope with that job. Susan would be a good candidate for a meaty SL what with her being almost family.

    Report message7

  • Message 58

    , in reply to message 57.

    Posted by Torch_Brookfield (U14919119) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    Susan would be a good candidate for a meaty SL what with her being almost family. 
    . . . and I'm sure that's exactly how Brine & JD (especially) see it!

    Actually, didn't Brine try to hit on Susan years ago - when she was young & he was only middle-aged?

    Report message8

  • Message 59

    , in reply to message 58.

    Posted by Ruralrambler (U11117592) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    I think it was Betty Tucker who was the object of his lust - don't recall he ever tried it on with Susan. Betty was Jennifer's cleaner IIRC.

    Report message9

  • Message 60

    , in reply to message 58.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    didn't Brine try to hit on Susan years ago - when she was young & he was only middle-aged 

    Probably!

    All subsidies should be abolished.

    Report message10

  • Message 61

    , in reply to message 58.

    Posted by SteveKills (U14949122) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    Susan would be a good candidate for a meaty SL what with her being almost family. 
    . . . and I'm sure that's exactly how Brine & JD (especially) see it!

    Actually, didn't Brine try to hit on Susan years ago - when she was young & he was only middle-aged? 
    No Torchers it was Beddy that Brine made a play for before she became dead-Beddy.

    Report message11

  • Message 62

    , in reply to message 61.

    Posted by Torch_Brookfield (U14919119) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    . . . before she became dead-Beddy. 

    Squire,

    T'would have been mega-caddish of Brine to have done otherwise, methinks - The very worst sort of bad manners!

    Report message12

  • Message 63

    , in reply to message 59.

    Posted by borchesterbouncer (U14738918) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    I think it was Betty Tucker who was the object of his lust - don't recall he ever tried it on with Susan. Betty was Jennifer's cleaner IIRC.  The line "Why Betty, you're trembling" is forever etched upon our minds and we still use the phrase at appropriate moments!

    Report message13

  • Message 64

    , in reply to message 60.

    Posted by Lee Shore (U14673711) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    Try saying that in a Yorkshire Dales farmers' pub!

    But there again, you would be talking to yourself or a few 2nd home owners who couldn't give a toss and they bring their Waitrose stuff with them in their shiny 4X4 or soemthing really rural from the daft "farmers market" in their city..

    Report message14

  • Message 65

    , in reply to message 63.

    Posted by strokecitydave (U5467417) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    I think it was Betty Tucker who was the object of his lust - don't recall he ever tried it on with Susan. Betty was Jennifer's cleaner IIRC.  The line "Why Betty, you're trembling" is forever etched upon our minds and we still use the phrase at appropriate moments!  bosetshirebouncer - we're the same on this one in our house. We remember him following it with an "I know why a woman trembles like that". Do our memories deceive us?

    Report message15

  • Message 66

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by helfor (U14918696) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    Ignore ALFers and think about feeding the grain (soya etc) that is fed to cattle directly to people - reduces greenhouse gas emissions and is more efficient (I think even ardent carnivores would admit that milk is an unnecessary luxury)

    Report message16

  • Message 67

    , in reply to message 66.

    Posted by Ruralrambler (U11117592) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    We could all live on a diet of grains and pulses I suppose - but I don't think it's going to happen and most people I suspect would think it neither necessary nor desirable. I for one don't regard milk as a luxury but an integral part of a northen European diet - not essential certainly but hardly excessive. And very nutritious.

    The best thing to reduce the human impact on the planet would be for people not to have so many children - something that will probably come about eventually once developing nations get richer and people don't need to rely on having lots of children so that at least some survive to look after them in their old age.

    JD has four, so she is an offender in that regard.

    Report message17

  • Message 68

    , in reply to message 66.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    A diet of grains and pulses is not much fun if one is allergic to the protein in the pulses and in some of the nuts.

    Report message18

  • Message 69

    , in reply to message 65.

    Posted by borchesterbouncer (U14738918) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    Dave, we can't recall the follow through we were obviously gobsmacked at the first bit!

    Report message19

  • Message 70

    , in reply to message 55.

    Posted by fellman (U14848647) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    Crikey Fellman, so you don't remember the DD being sold the digester on the basis of the grant either?

    Actually, they were.

    And it wasn't the DD who objected to growing crops for the biodigester, it was Pat & Tony who refused to join the venture.

    The DD withdrew because the project became larger under Matt's influence than DD had promised in his crayon-powerpoint presentation in TVH. There were no ethics involved in the decision, just a dislike of Matt. 
    Not exactly in those terms I don't Old Cath. Although I have - I admit - reached saturation point with the plethera of financial detail and a terminal obsession with meetings which seems to preoccupy the SW's in recent years, and do my very best to mentally switch off when they are force fed to us; lah lahing with fingers in ears is the next stage I am considering!
    But the viability of their farm would be a priority and I think few are the farmers who would not at least examine possibilities for some diversity - and then reject a scheme which was not what it was initially presented to be.

    Report message20

  • Message 71

    , in reply to message 70.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    > I think few are the farmers who would not at least examine possibilities for some diversity - and then reject a scheme which was not what it was initially presented to be.<

    Mmm but you were agreeing with some very distinct propositions about why the DD withdrew, both of which were wrong.

    Report message21

  • Message 72

    , in reply to message 70.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    40% of £600,000 is £240,000. The other £360,000 divided between Home Farm and Brookfield Farm is £180,000, with presumably the hope that eventually this money will be regained; I wonder how much profit per year they were expecting.

    Report message22

  • Message 73

    , in reply to message 72.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    >40% of £600,000 is £240,000. The other £360,000 divided between Home Farm and Brookfield Farm is £180,000, with presumably the hope that eventually this money will be regained<

    No. the project was costing £1m so BF was to stump up £300k. Iirc the returns after allowing for interest payments was around 8% - it was one of those schemes where govt grants were so generous plus the returns from the electricity company tied in for years, meant that this was a real winner - a bit like the solar panel scheme that's just about to be withdrawn.

    Report message23

  • Message 74

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Barry Evans (U14782613) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    On the idea then Ruth?  No, and I'm not keen on it either. A cow is a sentient being, with feelings. They have a hard enough life, but being locked indoors, never to have tasted fresh grass, seen a blue sky, heard a bird sing......can't be right, can it.

    Our problem is there are too many people in this world. We must educate the third world and reduce the population to a more sustainable figure, so there is room for trees, grass and wild creatures, as well as the so-called human so called race!

    I met La Sharpissima in T Wells a while ago at the Graham show - it was good to meet!

    Report message24

  • Message 75

    , in reply to message 74.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    Discuss The Archers
    Not keen

    To reply to this message, type your message in the box below.

    Your reply

    In reply to voiceinthewilderness:

    On the idea then Ruth? No, and I'm not keen on it either. A cow is a sentient being, with feelings. They have a hard enough life, but being locked indoors, never to have tasted fresh grass, seen a blue sky, heard a bird sing......can't be right, can it.

    Our problem is there are too many people in this world. We must educate the third world and reduce the population to a more sustainable figure, so there is room for trees, grass and wild creatures, as well as the so-called human so called race!
     


    And then after lunch?

    PS "Graham Show" - a crackers exhibition?

    Report message25

  • Message 76

    , in reply to message 74.

    Posted by strokecitydave (U5467417) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    No, and I'm not keen on it either. A cow is a sentient being, with feelings. They have a hard enough life, but being locked indoors, never to have tasted fresh grass, seen a blue sky, heard a bird sing......can't be right, can it.  

    As a kid in the 1950's, I was taken to London Zoo. I didn't understand why the lion, in its nice clean cage and its 3 meals a day, just paced to and fro all the time. I do now. These megadairies are pure animal cruelty IMHO.

    Report message26

  • Message 77

    , in reply to message 76.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    As a kid in the 1950's, I was taken to London Zoo. I didn't understand why the lion, in its nice clean cage and its 3 meals a day, just paced to and fro all the time. I do now. These megadairies are pure animal cruelty IMHO. 


    /city - How are the cows housed?

    Is it just possible that cows, lacking our aesthetic sensibilities - PREFER to live in a nice warm shed?

    People mostly live inside.

    Report message27

  • Message 78

    , in reply to message 77.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Friday, 18th November 2011

    OI, you have had that discussion with yourself before, but seem not to have found any answer to "but they do prefer to have the option on going out of doors, and even on opening a window so they get fresh air."

    Report message28

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.