Discuss The Archers  permalink

What's wrong with the

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 101 - 150 of 170
  • Message 101

    , in reply to message 100.

    Posted by TheBlackKettle (U2258054) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    ...And *our* dependence on food imports would make us subject to blackmail by other countries if we let our farming go..
    JPBS 

    Eh? How's that gonna work then?

    Report message1

  • Message 102

    , in reply to message 100.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    And *our* dependence on food imports would make us subject to blackmail by other countries if we let our farming go..
    JPBS 


    Which countries could blackmail us; and how?

    "let go" = "stop subsidising" ?

    Let it go, Bismillah let it go.

    Report message2

  • Message 103

    , in reply to message 99.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    In reply to TheBlackKettle:

    ...massively increase [a] the profits of supermarkets...
    That sounds great! Another much-needed boost to the economy! 


    Many a true word.

    Supermarkets pay tax; and their profits pay pensions.

    And they do not overpay their staff, as banks are criticised for doing!

    Report message3

  • Message 104

    , in reply to message 89.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    < As to morals while I agree in principle farming shouldn't be subsidised the hard fact is that pretty much all other countries subsidise farming and if we were to end subsidies we'd be swamped in low cost (subsidised) food from other countries. All very well but it would be bad for the environment (carbon footprint) and there would be no assurances about animal welfare and if the worst came to the worst - and things can always get worse - we'd have no means of feeding the people in this country. So reluctantly I think subsidies are necessary at the moment. But it's important to remember that many farmers are effectively depending on state benefits. >

    Agreed Cath. We need to semi-self sufficient at least.

    Report message4

  • Message 105

    , in reply to message 104.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    Agreed Cath. We need to semi-self sufficient at least. 

    We would be.

    Just not subsidised.

    Report message5

  • Message 106

    , in reply to message 79.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    It's known as free market forces!  These are the same "free market forces" that the banking and property sectors set such store by, presumably?

    Report message6

  • Message 107

    , in reply to message 106.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    In reply to joe:

    It's known as free market forces! These are the same "free market forces" that the banking and property sectors set such store by, presumably? 


    Both those sectors suffer from state interference.

    If governments made clear that there would be NO bank bail outs people would only deposit with safe institutions that took no major risks.

    And if there were no controls limiting development the property market would be less extreme in its inevitable cycles.

    Report message7

  • Message 108

    , in reply to message 107.

    Posted by Rose Sal Volatile Parade (U4705648) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    If there were /no/ controls limiting development we would all end up in chaotic wastelands.

    A slavish attachment to free markets is a scary dogma akin to a slavish attachment to unfree ones (such as the Soviet Union and its satellites had).

    i would have thought it was obvious by now that capitalism, as free as possible but mitigated, regulated and subsidised where necessary is the most likely economic backdrop to true freedom for people.

    All we ought to be arguing about is the level of mitigation, the relevance and efficiency of regulation and the least we can get away with, most efficient possible, subsidies where necessary - not living in a fantasy land where all is solved by total control or no control at all.

    Report message8

  • Message 109

    , in reply to message 108.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    I would have SOME controls on development

    But very few.

    Sufficiently few that the cost of building land would be the same as that of farmland unless it had a prime location.

    And I would scrap most controls on Listed buildings.

    The present government is going in the right direction.

    Report message9

  • Message 110

    , in reply to message 109.

    Posted by helena handcart (U14258601) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    to me

    Report message10

  • Message 111

    , in reply to message 109.

    Posted by Rose Sal Volatile Parade (U4705648) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    Right - so we're actually in the same ball park, just debating the details.

    One thing that strikes me about what you say is what the definition of 'prime location' might be. It depends what you;re interested in what it is, surely? Views for some people, newts and beetles and orchids for others. Can't just trample over all that - got to have a system that debates it all out before either destroying it (because we've got to mvoe on) or preserving it (because the balance of gain against loss does not make destruction worthwhile).

    And for listed buildings - it surely depends which buildings. Regulation can get very fussy and actually hinder the preservation of buildings as useful structures for the here and now, but otoh, why would we want to allow the desecration of buildings by people who simply want to do things cheaply and don't give a tsos for quality or the (urban as well as rural) environment (I mean this in the broadest sense) or who haven't got any idea what they're living in because they're ignorant gips? Buildings do belong to the people who buy them, but the bits that face onto streets and the history and culture of a place belong to all of us. We all have to live with each other over time and generations, not just in our self-centred little bubbles.

    Report message11

  • Message 112

    , in reply to message 110.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    In reply to helena handcart:

    to me 


    I take that to mean "In my opinion"

    As in "In my opinion the government is doing the right thing".


    Not too sure about the High Speed Train though. Don't give a damn about the Chilterns so long as those affected are lavishly compensated, but it seems an awful lot of money for little gain. And our trains are already ruinously expensive to use.

    Report message12

  • Message 113

    , in reply to message 111.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    Buildings do belong to the people who buy them, but the bits that face onto streets and the history and culture of a place belong to all of us. We all have to live with each other over time and generations, not just in our self-centred little bubbles. 

    Yes, but why should Town Hall erks decide?

    I live in a Georgian building with an interesting side extension with contrasting fenestration.

    The conservation officer agrees that he will not consent to demolition of the extension. But also that if it did not exist there would be no chance of being allowed to build it.

    Another local property was allowed development provided that the style of fenestration was preserved. Despite photographic proof of what it looked like 80 years ago, restoring the as-built sash windows was NOT permitted.

    Report message13

  • Message 114

    , in reply to message 113.

    Posted by Rose Sal Volatile Parade (U4705648) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    The conservation officer sounds like an erk I agree; if you have photographic evidence of how it used to look you could argue you have a duty to restore it. I'd appeal.

    Someone has to be the keeper of the rules. Should it be the police? Local business people? A representative committee? Town hall erks are at least local.

    Btw, though I sympathise with anyone caught up in interminable and illogical bureaucracy, relaxing conservation laws on existing buildings won't exactly prime the pump of the economy, will it?



    Report message14

  • Message 115

    , in reply to message 114.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    Btw, though I sympathise with anyone caught up in interminable and illogical bureaucracy, relaxing conservation laws on existing buildings won't exactly prime the pump of the economy, will it? 

    I would say it will.

    Less rules; more minor works carried out.

    The property I am in could be changed to better economic use - but not under all the rules.

    Indeed £40,000 of public money has recently been wasted on it to no useful purpose.

    Report message15

  • Message 116

    , in reply to message 115.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    Less rules; more minor works carried out.  On the cheap, and to what standards?

    Ask Priory Hall residents about the importance of compliance.

    I know non-regulation is an article of faith for you, so I'm not trying to change your mind, but I would point out that a lot of regulation is only introduced /after/ something has gone wrong. Too much regulation can be a problem - none at all is a cowboys' charter.

    Report message16

  • Message 117

    , in reply to message 56.

    Posted by Lotte04 (U15073973) on Monday, 9th January 2012

    We have very little money but we always buy organic dairy products and free range eggs. As someone mentioned previously, it is a matter of priorities. We don't eat meat which means we tend to eat cheaper anyway. I have this argument with my sister who is a struggling student who eats meat everyday. Of course she could afford to eat free range meat, eggs and dairy. She would just have to eat less of it. I don't wish to foist vegetarianism on anybody but no-one needs to eat meat everyday. And the meat does not have to contribute the bulk of the meal when eaten.

    Report message17

  • Message 118

    , in reply to message 117.

    Posted by pollyanna (U7304225) on Monday, 9th January 2012

    More or less sums up my situation Lotte, except I don't always buy organic, but produce from local sources (or as near as possible - I live in London so not always practical) who farm humanity but not necessarily completely organically. So I buy eggs from a source whose chickens I actually see 'free ranging' and I know have a lovely life, but who do get treated with, say, antibiotics, if needed, rather than homeopathic remedies, and I can live with that - I do not rely on homeopathy to treat my own ailments so what good for the goose, as it were......

    And I too don't wish to foist vegetarianism on anyone, and certainly not vegan ism. Apart from anything else, the landscape of this country, and certainly the aspects of it most of love, would change beyond recognition if vegan living became the norm. For example, I don't particularly want to see the fells and hillls free of sheep and covered in forest. . Because that's what we are talking about if vegetariansim/veganism became the norm rather than the choice of some people such as me.

    Report message18

  • Message 119

    , in reply to message 118.

    Posted by pollyanna (U7304225) on Monday, 9th January 2012

    Aaagh, I do not buy from local sources who farm humanity, although that's a thought, but farm /humanely/.

    I really shouldn't post this early after a late night.

    Report message19

  • Message 120

    , in reply to message 118.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Monday, 9th January 2012

    I would agree with that - that pasture for dairy cattle, and sheep farming has long affected our countryside and gives us the landscape that so many of us enjoy, but if all that is left at the end of the day is Brian's mega dairy sheds and endless wheat prairies to feed them, then count me out. I'm going over to soymilk.

    Report message20

  • Message 121

    , in reply to message 118.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Monday, 9th January 2012

    Top post, Polly.

    Report message21

  • Message 122

    , in reply to message 120.

    Posted by pollyanna (U7304225) on Monday, 9th January 2012

    [but if all that is left at the end of the day is Brian's mega dairy sheds and endless wheat prairies to feed them, then count me out. I'm going over to soy milk]

    Agree Poorgrass except I'd pass on the soy milk as I'd rather do without any 'milk' at all than consume the yukky stuff. Perhaps a cow in the back garden will be the answer.

    Report message22

  • Message 123

    , in reply to message 122.

    Posted by The Giddy Kipper (U10918464) on Monday, 9th January 2012

    >>erhaps a cow in the back garden will be the answer.<<

    What would you do with the calves? (-;

    Report message23

  • Message 124

    , in reply to message 123.

    Posted by pollyanna (U7304225) on Monday, 9th January 2012

    Umm, I was joking. There wouldn't be room for a cow, what with the herd of wildebeest on the lawn.

    Report message24

  • Message 125

    , in reply to message 124.

    Posted by The Giddy Kipper (U10918464) on Monday, 9th January 2012

    Umm, so was I

    Report message25

  • Message 126

    , in reply to message 125.

    Posted by pollyanna (U7304225) on Monday, 9th January 2012

    I know Giddy, but I wasn't sure if you realised I was, which would have been fair enough - I might have had ambitions to reenact The Good Life in N.E. London. ( Actually keeping the birds in seed and the squirrels in peanuts is as far as I am likely to venture into garden based animal husbandry).

    Report message26

  • Message 127

    , in reply to message 126.

    Posted by The Giddy Kipper (U10918464) on Monday, 9th January 2012

    No worries - today seems to be one of those mb days when everything I write seems to go through the Google-Misinterpretation add-on as soon as i press 'Send'

    Report message27

  • Message 128

    , in reply to message 127.

    Posted by pollyanna (U7304225) on Monday, 9th January 2012

    Oh I know that feeling Giddy, been there, done that....

    Report message28

  • Message 129

    , in reply to message 110.

    Posted by kissedbough (U14269224) on Monday, 9th January 2012

    snorkeroony helena!!!

    Report message29

  • Message 130

    , in reply to message 122.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Monday, 9th January 2012

    I like soy milk in Asia, but not what we get here.

    I think they do something to make it more like cows milk - which I am not over fond of anyway

    Report message30

  • Message 131

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by LadyIsaacWalton (U13828725) on Monday, 9th January 2012

    Cross-posted again, there Chris - sorry!



    Incidentally, that site is promoting vegetarianism, yes?

    So what on earth are they doing with a badger in the masthead? Does anyone, anywhere, actually eat them?  
    She's right, badger hams featured in old rural life, sometimes smoked in the chimney. I think a young one might be very tasty.

    www.independent.co.u...

    Report message31

  • Message 132

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Jane (U15097271) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    If the cows are indoors most of the time, will they suffer from too little vitamin D?

    Report message32

  • Message 133

    , in reply to message 132.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    That will be the business of the in-house vet, won't it, jane -- the one who also gives them all the antibiotics they need.

    This stuff about antibiotics was said by Debbie in the voice of one who thinks that cows need antibiotics as a matter of course and at regular intervals, and antibiotics are all that any cow needs to ensure that she is in good health. (I expect that if they are not, that cow is for the chop.)

    I don't think Debbie has had anything much to do with an actual cow since Home Farm gave up having them back in the nineties some time. It is clear she regards the things in Hungary as lactation units to be replaced as soon as their yield is insufficient. She doesn't ever go to their megadairy; she said so. And her experience of looking at the accounts for that part of the operation she runs is that antibiotics for the lactation units form a large expenditure at that installation. And I would bet she thinks of them as "it" not "she", in spite of the fact thatonly their being female makes them of any utility a far as she is concerned.

    Report message33

  • Message 134

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by shulascat (U14737252) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    I s'pose there's an argument that most kids and many adults would actually choose to mooch around indoors all day, with warmth and plenty of food close to hand. (Aren't we are all now sitting in front of our computers?) Not much different to what the cows will be getting.

    Report message34

  • Message 135

    , in reply to message 134.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    People would until they discovered the damage that it had done them.

    People die of being fat and lazy. What is worse is that they do themselves permanent harm, and suffer for the rest of their (shortened) lives as a result of it.

    That won't be a problem for the cows, of course, because they are not expected to last more than four or five years before they are replaced.

    (I don't know about most kids, anyhow. None of my three chose never to take any exercise and never to go out, and they weren't that fussed about having the food available for them to eat all the time in an absent-minded way. None was obese either, so perhaps they were just incredibly lucky in their metabolisms.)

    Report message35

  • Message 136

    , in reply to message 134.

    Posted by jennet_device (U8197637) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    I love the thought of Debbie's cows sitting in front of their Macs and contributing to this thread. Now I'm trying to guess which posters are the cows...

    Report message36

  • Message 137

    , in reply to message 136.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    Now I'm trying to guess which posters are the cows...  Well, there's never any shortage of BS…☺

    Report message37

  • Message 138

    , in reply to message 136.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    Moo.

    Mooooo, moo moo moo moo moo moo!

    Report message38

  • Message 139

    , in reply to message 137.

    Posted by sunnysakasredux (U14979019) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    Now I'm trying to guess which posters are the cows...  Well, there's never any shortage of BS…☺   ROFLWST! Joe!
    It is possible to use the internet in the open air no need to use a desk top! Hello! Phones, lap tops, pads! As long as the signal is there it is easy. Animals like being out, well horses do, as long as they have some shelter from the storm. My opinion is treat animals as you would wish to be treated yourself, anyone that can be cruel to an animal can be cruel to a human. I needn't worry about all those little kids in factories any more now I have been assured they love to be indoors all day! I like being outside but horses for courses cliche! cliche!

    My granny's vet had a rescue battery hen that wouldn't go outside, perhaps the battery cows will become agoraphobic as well! It's a bit Dr Manet I think.
    xxxx

    Report message39

  • Message 140

    , in reply to message 139.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    The cows will not have a choice about whether they are indoors or outdoors, just like the factory children. (Good analogy sakas.)

    If they were left outside all winter in ice and snow and with no shelter at all that would be just as bad.

    I go on saying at intervals that the reason for mistrust of this sort of dairy is the compulsion. Just like making ducks live in nice hygenic barns with no water apart from what they can get to drink out of the feeders, it is a wrongness.

    Report message40

  • Message 141

    , in reply to message 140.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    IIUC the moo cows are happy to be idle most of the time but like a bit of a run out now and them.

    Couldn't the system let them run around a bit on the way back from milking to stalls?

    Or perhaps have a moo treadmill with TV pix of fields? Connected to a generator with a renewables subsidy?

    Report message41

  • Message 142

    , in reply to message 140.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    It isn't just that for me, Chris, I think the huge numbers mean that the animals will not be well treated. Milking machines not sentient beings.

    Report message42

  • Message 143

    , in reply to message 142.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    There is a duck "farm" in this country which apparently boasts that "As many as 85,000 birds can be looked after by only one person....”

    www.factoryfarming.o...

    This particular factory was bought in 2010 by the Bangkok Ranch Group to become their third factory producing duck meat for restaurants; they have about 85% of the UK market, according to their figures.

    I gave up eating duck unless I knew the farm it came from and had seen their ducks on the pond, in around 1990 when I found out about this sort of thing going on: before then I hadn't thought that anyone would be so cruel and thought duck (which was expensive) would be safe in terms of conditions it was kept in before slaughter. Naive of me, I know.

    Report message43

  • Message 144

    , in reply to message 143.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    I'm always careful about where our meat comes from. We don't buy much but when we do we like to think the animals had a decent life. Same goes for dairy produce and eggs too.

    Report message44

  • Message 145

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Lee Shore (U14673711) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    Earlier today I attended a lunch and happened to be sitting at a table where there were three farmers, two of which were ex- dairy farmers. As a neutral "townie" I brought up the subject of mega dairies and the sentiments expressed on this board.

    The ex dairy farmers said if the UK wanted to keep home dairy production then they had better take note of these types of units. Both farmers sold their herds and scrapped their expensive kit and caboodle because the present system does not allow the farmer to earn sufficient profit to pay the bills. They both said if the sentimentalists can make it work then they are welcome to rent the fields, pay the bills and try and sell the milk to allow the cattle to be kept at a higher welfare standard than offered by a so called mega dairy. One wagged his finger at me to say that the mega dairies he knows keep the animals in far better conditions and with the best welfare standards available because that is the only way to have a happy cow that will give good yields. This farmer was 60 + years old. Funnily enough the younger one, about 45 said he was devesated when he sold his herd. His farm had been in dairy for well over 100 years. He said that if the country wanted to go down the road of no large scale units then UK milk, cheese, butter etc will be beyond the the purses of the average UK citizen.

    Only two, I know, but probably this reflects the view of farmers who have to make a living and feed the nation rather than creating a bucollic lifestyle based on Thomas Hardy novels.

    Report message45

  • Message 146

    , in reply to message 145.

    Posted by The Giddy Kipper (U10918464) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    Is it really worth it?

    Report message46

  • Message 147

    , in reply to message 146.

    Posted by Lee Shore (U14673711) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    Having a home dairy industry other than a speciality ultra high cost one or one that produces a product that we all can enjoy? I for one do not want to walk a mile across my town to deliver leaflets to say that you poorer people can no longer expect to be able to afford to buy milk products for your family.

    Report message47

  • Message 148

    , in reply to message 145.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    The ex dairy farmers said if the UK wanted to keep home dairy production then they had better take note of these types of units 

    It's bit of Gresham's Law and a bit of Economics 1.01 Price Establishment.

    So long as we allow free trade in milk its price will be set by the international market and by the lowest cost legal production methods.

    Report message48

  • Message 149

    , in reply to message 148.

    Posted by Lee Shore (U14673711) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    At the moment that appears to be so. Therefore any sensible dairy farmer unwilling to lose their farm on a matter of principle had better follow this market or sell the herd and plough up the pastures.

    The alternative is price fixing at the farm gate or perhaps massive subsidies in addition to those being given to hill farms. We will then retain our green and pleasant land but, golly, we will be paying for it!

    As a hugely squeezed middle one with a robbed pension scheme I am not sure there is anything left!

    Report message49

  • Message 150

    , in reply to message 146.

    Posted by AP (U14268795) on Saturday, 14th January 2012

    I would rather have a home dairy industry, just as I would rather eat UK grown pork. I feel (rightly or wrongly) that I trust UK animal welfare standards more than European ones.

    I would like to know more about mega dairies, content cows are likely to produce more, I am sure they are not crated and I think the UK has controls on antibiotics. Haven't we heard Ruth throwing away milk from a cow which was being treated?

    Supper time...

    Report message50

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

BBC © 2014 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.