Discuss The Archers  permalink

What's wrong with the

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 51 - 100 of 170
  • Message 51

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Cows do appear to be extremely immobile.

    I think they can ruminate inside a building as well as outside can't they?

    Don't they already go in sheds in the harsh weather?

    Report message1

  • Message 52

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Freda, they were protesting about the smell and congestion affecting the value of their homes. Animal cruelty didn't appear to come in it much.

    It was rumoured that the protest against the mega dairy was started by a single 'incomer' who wanted to sell and move on.

    They don't like incomers in these 'ere parts!

    Report message2

  • Message 53

    , in reply to message 52.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    I believe plans for the diary were deferred. it seems that it does all come down to money (or house values) in the end.

    I must say I would miss seeing cows 'standing around' in the fields all day!

    Report message3

  • Message 54

    , in reply to message 50.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Ten per cent of the population go without milk as much as possible already because they are lactose-intolerant. My recently-deceased friend for whom I used to go shopping was *incredibly* grateful that this fact is beginning to be noticed, so that even the supermarkets have begun to sell cakes and so forth that are free from milk; my brother, also lactose-intolerant, is similarly glad of the change in attitudes.

    We do not need milk. Nobody over the age of six *needs* milk. We merely like to have it, which is not the same thing.

    Report message4

  • Message 55

    , in reply to message 52.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Baubles
    Are you talking about the planning objection to the Lincoln Mega-dairy?

    As the site made clear the objectors were not *allowed* to object on animal welfare grounds only on specific grounds you've mentioned
    JPB S

    Report message5

  • Message 56

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by EsmeandSebastiansGrannyNic (U12027312) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Sheesh! What incredably smug attitudes. What if I can't afford free range eggs? Should I stop eating eggs? Same with meat - should I stop eating it if I can't afford organic / free range? Rubbish! I'm amazed at the nonsense the middle classes will spout in defense of their comfortable position. It's so easy to be considerate when you're well off. What about the rest of us? 


    As Marie Antoinette would say let them eat cake, though only organic homemade free range cake of course.............................


    Report message6

  • Message 57

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by BlackSheepBoy (U11150138) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    To me, it sets up at least two changes in relationship, both worth considering.

    Man and Animal. Instead becomes Man and Equipment. Man maintains and keeps his cow clean, just like he would maintain and clean his lawnmower.

    Village and Farms. Becomes Village and Factory

    I acknowledge that having considered them it's still possible to say that a mega dairy is what you want. But, myself, I don't.

    Report message7

  • Message 58

    , in reply to message 50.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Yes, Locky if I couldn't afford to buy local organically produced milk. It is only a few pence more than usual stuff so even if I I had touse it sparingly I reckon I would have to be way below the breadline not to be able to afford the odd pint or two.

    But yes I could live with out milk.

    Report message8

  • Message 59

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Kimmysmummy (U14151395) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Mega-dairy? Most of us drink cow's milk. We all want it be as cheap as possible. Farmers want to maximise their profits. Win-win as far as I can see. Healthy, well fed and cared for beasts. What's the problem?  I can't begin to explain why the idea of a mega dairy is disgusting. In a world where we should be working towards making the lives of farm animals better - mega dairies just make them worse. They are like the bovine equivilent of a concentration camp and producing cheap milk, eggs and meat at an animal's expense is morally wrong. Most people find the idea of keeping cows indoors, herded together in thousands abhorent and rightly so. Animals deserve some quality of life no matter how short they are an no matter what their destiny is. Just how cheap do you want your milk to be and have you considered that an unhappy cow is unlikely to produce milk with any taste or nutrients - but hey, they can be artificially added can't they? And anyway, as long as it's cheap.

    Report message9

  • Message 60

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    If the cows are so healthy in these mega-units, why do they seem to need more antibiotics than cows that are not kept in mega-units? Feeding them antibiotics seems to be regarded as quite usual.

    If a cow is sick enough to need antibiotics it will generally not be happy, just as a person who is sick enough to need antibiotics is generally not happy.

    One of the things Debbie was plugging was that the cows would get all the antibiotics they need; but a cow needing antibiotics, just like a human being needing antibiotics, ought to be a rare thing, not commonplace.

    Report message10

  • Message 61

    , in reply to message 54.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Apparently only European adults drink milk after childhood plus some from the Indian sub- continent. Milk persistence (as it's called) arose from a gene mutation and does or did give some genetic advantage (obviously).

    Milk `persistence' exists only in one third of the world's population and intolerance (apparently) in two thirds. As to `needing it' - the fact that the gene has not died out makes me think that if you are an adult with milk persistence - and like milk - then you probably should drink it! And since I come from a family with a familial problem of crumbling bones I *do* drink it. (I don't like a lot of cheese .. and can't digest oily fish ) . I can only assume things are arranged differently for those with milk intolerance..
    JPBS

    Report message11

  • Message 62

    , in reply to message 61.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Would agree with that. It's quite possible that the retention of the enzyme to hydrolyze lactose could be a particular adaptation to a lifestyle that has been about for a long time, and you are right about bone health - milk with its vitamin D and calcium doesn't do any harm and may help if these nutrients are in short supply for other reasons.

    Of course you can supplement soya milk to provide the same nutrition - it's a bit artificial, but frankly I'd sooner buy that than something from a horrible animal factory like a mega dairy.

    Report message12

  • Message 63

    , in reply to message 58.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    anna. I think it depends how many children one has. When I was a single parent with 3 children the milk bill was a huge drain and problem for me for years. We had about 6 pints at the weekend! It haunted our lives! I couldn't get it at the supermarket as I couldn't carry it.

    Report message13

  • Message 64

    , in reply to message 63.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    I had at least 3 pints every day for 7 days. That was at least 21 pints a week. I don't really know how much a litre of milk is now. However, I'm sure it would still work out at quite a bit from one's benefit.

    Report message14

  • Message 65

    , in reply to message 64.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    and some families have more than 3 children and one adult!

    Report message15

  • Message 66

    , in reply to message 62.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    We still have milk delivered - so far as I know *not* from a mega-dairy. I've tried soya milk - it makes me gag!

    I've had a scan - which I had to push for - and so far am OK. My siblings however, were not and have had to take supplements and medication.

    The results of the scan came through about the time of the visit of HRH - I wish they'd had a bit more in TA about osteoporosis and less boot licking ..
    JPBS

    Report message16

  • Message 67

    , in reply to message 62.

    Posted by Rose Sal Volatile Parade (U4705648) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    But too much milk is not good. In Holland, for example, they drink gallons of it even as adults but have a very high incidence of breast cancer. There are studies which correlate these two facts.

    Report message17

  • Message 68

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by elizabeth church (U14285872) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Back in 1950 when my parents started farming milk was the same price as beer.
    I can't understand why milk prices have to be kept so low that farmers don't get a decent price.

    Report message18

  • Message 69

    , in reply to message 67.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Mmmm. There were studies, for a while, that seemed to correlate salt consumption and heart problems, but there is now excellent evidence that in fact it is not too much but too little salt that is present in the boddies of the victims of heart attacks.

    I think that whatever you eat or drink there will be someone who manages to connect it with something dire. Look at eggs: good, bad, good, bad, shake it all about. Or come to that, look at the number of things that give you cancer of one sort and another if you read the Daily Mail.

    Too much of *anything* is surely not a good idea anyhow: me old ma gawd blesser always advocated a mixed diet, and I think she was probably right.

    Report message19

  • Message 70

    , in reply to message 68.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    elizabeth, I dont think it is all because the price of milk is kept down; some of it has got to be that the price of beer has been greatly inflated. The government are not taking a large percentage of the price of each pint of milk as tax, whereas they are with beer. I think they take at least a quid a pint on the beer.

    Report message20

  • Message 71

    , in reply to message 67.

    Posted by GoneAwayForGood (U14551283) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    But too much milk is not good. In Holland, for example, they drink gallons of it even as adults but have a very high incidence of breast cancer. There are studies which correlate these two facts.  I didn't know about a possible link between milk and breast cancer, Rose so thanks for bringing this to our attention. Nor in fact did I know anything about mega dairies until this. I think TA is good when it brings this sort of issue to our attention, setting up the conflict, showing and encouraging both sides of the debate and forcing us to think about our ethical position.

    By the way, can someone remind me about the last time the farmers and Linda et al in the village came into conflict? I know it had to do with a digester but I just can't remember the outcome.

    Report message21

  • Message 72

    , in reply to message 71.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    It was to do with an anaerobic digester.

    I think at one time TWO were proposed! Matt was involved and when he pulled out the other lot did too ..

    "To lose one poo-digester, Mr Crichton, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."

    And there you have it ..
    JPBS

    Report message22

  • Message 73

    , in reply to message 69.

    Posted by Rose Sal Volatile Parade (U4705648) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Of course - mixed diet much the best. But if we demand very cheap milk so that we can drink a lot of it we should know why we want to do this. Why do we, actually?

    These are population-based studies, not studies of any one individual's risk.

    Report message23

  • Message 74

    , in reply to message 73.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    I probably don't have it *that* much. I have it in tea and coffee and I have cereal for brekker about 3 times a week. Cheese now and then.

    Interesting that it is thought to cause breast cancer? The main criticism I've heard of dairy products is that they `make mucus'. Well maybe - but I'd rather have that than crumbling bones!
    JPBS

    Report message24

  • Message 75

    , in reply to message 56.

    Posted by Froginasock (U14272821) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Yep. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and his other multi-millionaire chef friends continually give us the message that we "must" pay 12 quid for an organically reared free range chicken which has had a long life with a wide circle of friends.

    Ignoring the fact that 12 quid for him is s*d all whereas for some people it could be 20%+ of their weekly shopping budget.

    Oh and if you don't buy such food you are a Bad Person and should jolly well go without!

    Marie Antoinette writ large...

    Report message25

  • Message 76

    , in reply to message 69.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    >Mmmm. There were studies, for a while, that seemed to correlate salt consumption and heart problems, but there is now excellent evidence that in fact it is not too much but too little salt that is present in the boddies of the victims of heart attacks.<

    There was an excellent review of this in New Scientist magazine a few weeks back. The idea that salt is innocent is a highly selective reading of specific data which has been greatly promoted by (surprise surprise) the salt industry. It is true that some studies did not show enough effect to be significant, but even then the directionofthe data was still the wrong way - that salt causes harm. And there is plenty of data which does suggest that salt is harmful, which is still the received opinion amongst most health professionals.

    >I think that whatever you eat or drink there will be someone who manages to connect it with something dire. Look at eggs: good, bad, good, bad, shake it all about. Or come to that, look at the number of things that give you cancer of one sort and another if you read the Daily Mail.<

    The likes of the daily Mail serve only to confuse - it is another source of highly selective information which can be very misleading. A lot of things are potentially carcinogenic, but finding those that have any measurable effect on human populations is very difficult particularly when exposure is at very low levels.

    Report message26

  • Message 77

    , in reply to message 76.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    I actually don't *like* very salty things - I look at the salt content to determine whether I'll like the product or not ..

    I almost think it's addictive ..?
    JPBS

    Report message27

  • Message 78

    , in reply to message 60.

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

    If the cows are so healthy in these mega-units, why do they seem to need more antibiotics than cows that are not kept in mega-units? Feeding them antibiotics seems to be regarded as quite usual. 

    Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

    My understanding is that only in USA are prophylactic antibiotics used, and then in meat production as it somehow stimulates growth.

    Report message28

  • Message 79

    , in reply to message 68.

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

    Back in 1950 when my parents started farming milk was the same price as beer.
    I can't understand why milk prices have to be kept so low that farmers don't get a decent price. 

    [sigh] There is no "kept so low" about it (or there shouldn't be!). It's known as free market forces!

    There's no such thing as a "decent price" (presumably enforced by State interference).

    Why do so many farmers think that the "market" should be run for their benefit, so they can continue with their "traditional" inefficient business models?

    Report message29

  • Message 80

    , in reply to message 79.

    Posted by The Giddy Kipper (U10918464) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    How is it a free market when it's subsidised?

    Report message30

  • Message 81

    , in reply to message 80.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    Subsidised by whom?

    Report message31

  • Message 82

    , in reply to message 81.

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

    My understanding is that there is no direct subsidy on milk production but that there are indirect subsidies available through Environmental Payments etc.

    Would welcome clarification of the position.

    Report message32

  • Message 83

    , in reply to message 81.

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

    Subsidised by whom? 

    The common British taxpayer - as mandated by our unelected masters in Brussels.

    Perhaps Seveek can advise us on the details - it seemed from his post that the herd attracted a subsidy.

    Report message33

  • Message 84

    , in reply to message 82.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    Farmers get the Single Farm Payment. I think it's based on the amount of land you farm and you get premiums for doing certain extra things to your land e.g. environmental things like beetle banks.

    Report message34

  • Message 85

    , in reply to message 84.

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

    Farmers get the Single Farm Payment. I think it's based on the amount of land you farm and you get premiums for doing certain extra things to your land e.g. environmental things like beetle banks. 

    I have no desire to pay taxes to encourage beetles. Or to keep the likes of Brian and David rich. Or to keep the likes of Tony in unviable businesses.

    Report message35

  • Message 86

    , in reply to message 85.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    But its not just beetles is it? Our eco-system is inter-related - other species depend on beetles etc.
    JPBS

    Report message36

  • Message 87

    , in reply to message 86.

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

    But its not just beetles is it? Our eco-system is inter-related - other species depend on beetles etc.
    JPBS 


    Yes. But I have NO faith in the ability of our political structures to make useful interventions.

    If they stop subsidising farmers a lot of land will apparently be unused. So revert to nature. Why PAY them to do it?

    Report message37

  • Message 88

    , in reply to message 87.

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

    But its not just beetles is it? Our eco-system is inter-related - other species depend on beetles etc.
    JPBS  

    Yes. But I have NO faith in the ability of our political structures to make useful interventions.

    If they stop subsidising farmers a lot of land will apparently be unused. So revert to nature. Why PAY them to do it?  

    Quite, Organ.

    Whoever was it that started the notion that 'farmers are the guardians of our environment'?

    They're not. Farmers are the destroyers of the environment. Let's allow unprofitable small farms to die and return the land to nature. Now that's environmentalism!

    Report message38

  • Message 89

    , in reply to message 87.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    I've been racking my brain to remember more details of the SFA and of course it's not just about how much land you farm. It came in, iirc, in 2005. But the amount you were paid depended on the subsidies you received in (again iirc) 2003 - the dates may be a bit askew but i think it was a 2 year period. Not all farming activity attracted a subsidy under the old rules (e.g. Tony & Pat won't have got a subsidy for their veg iirc). That 2 year period meant a lot of farmers who wanted to exit farming were hanging on until their SFA came through.

    One of the things I've always wondered was what Ollie did with his SFA - did he pass it on to Ed or keep it himself (and charge a lower rent to Ed)?

    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.

    Report message39

  • Message 90

    , in reply to message 89.

    Posted by TheBlackKettle (U2258054) 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... 

    That sounds great! Let's let the rest of Europe's tax payers feed us! More fool them; but I'm gonna fill me boots!

    Farms would soon be re-instated if market conditions changed.

    Report message40

  • Message 91

    , in reply to message 89.

    Posted by DracoM1 (U14252039) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    Excellent summary, cath.

    BUT, as is well known to anyone who farms, the dismal slowness and impenetrability of the arrangements enacted by the RPA to those who farm 'disadvantaged land' and the varieties of stock thereon has been an ongoing rage-making, poverty-inducing scandal for years. Teams of peripatetic professionals had to / still have to tour areas explaining to frustrated farmers their rights, the arrangements, the timetabling of payments etc, as well as helping with land assessment. And cath is right, every other country in the EEC operates subsidies in one for or another to different farming sectors.

    Milk production in such 'disadvantaged' areas is tricky to say the least, which is why sheep tend to be staple in them, and even then, certain breeds of sheep do not get subsidies. Milk delivered to us here is from a local farm, cost 52p a bottle, delivered in every conceivable weather faithfully by the family that farm/milk/process it. A mega-dairy would totally destroy such localism within months, could wreck whole areas farming economy.

    I would be very surprised if P&T got anything, or Ed / Ollie. Borsetshire is not 'disadvantaged land' by any stretch of the imagination

    Report message41

  • Message 92

    , in reply to message 91.

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

    Milk delivered to us here is from a local farm, cost 52p a bottle, 

    That is DOUBLE the cost in the shops you buy everything else from though?

    Report message42

  • Message 93

    , in reply to message 91.

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

    ...A mega-dairy would totally destroy such localism within months, could wreck whole areas farming economy... 

    A mega-dairy would boost the local and national economy by getting rid of smaller, less efficient farms.

    Report message43

  • Message 94

    , in reply to message 93.

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

    Like the Titanic boosted the national and local economies of Britain and the USA by getting rid of smaller and less efficient ships.

    Report message44

  • Message 95

    , in reply to message 93.

    Posted by DracoM1 (U14252039) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    And thereby incrementally but in the end massively increase [a] the profits of supermarkets who are mega-dairies' natural customers and [b] mean that local farms / shop outlets that provide locally-sourced, dairy based products would very quickly become unprofitable and close, and thus [c] mean that more people would have to drive miles to said supermarkets for supplies, and thus [d] increasing carbon deficit, and thus..........

    Keep asking yourself cui bono. And be careful how you develop the answers.

    Report message45

  • Message 96

    , in reply to message 94.

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

    Like the Titanic boosted the national and local economies of Britain and the USA by getting rid of smaller and less efficient ships. 

    Progress always involves hitches.

    Il faut reculer pour mieux sauter.

    Report message46

  • Message 97

    , in reply to message 91.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    >I would be very surprised if P&T got anything, or Ed / Ollie. <

    I think P&T would have got some subsidy for their arable and dairy Draco and I remember at the time thinking Ollie will have got some for his (at the time) beef cattle.

    Rummaging around I see the original 2003 directive was replaced by a new directive in 2009. I don't know how the terms of the new directive differ from the 2003 version.

    As to cheap food, I'm lucky enough to be able to choose to eat dearer high quality food. And i'd rather cut back on amount than quality. But I suspect my food bill is lower than lots of people because I rarely buy ready prepared meals and the only meat eater in the house is the cat, who does quite a bit of self catering anyway.

    Report message47

  • Message 98

    , in reply to message 96.

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

    It does indeed. It also often involves multiple attempts at finding the right way, and some blind alleys.

    Report message48

  • Message 99

    , in reply to message 95.

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

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

    Report message49

  • Message 100

    , in reply to message 95.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    I've just been listening to the food program - in a short piece (possibly a repeat) Ireland are going back to farming after the disastrous effects of their dependence on finance and property. And they are going in for dairy! No mention of mega-dairy in the piece.

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

    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.