On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 11:30:30 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 21:51:22 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , David P
writes
you were impling that the people who were still
farming were short-sighted.

I was not. snipped the rest, all written under that misconception

I reckon the misunderstanding is down to you. Were I to have had the
same conversation with others in UKBA I would have had a continuing
dialogue. You seem to take a delight in setting a hare running and then,
when you cannot recatch it, change direction completely. That is not my
way; you will have to play with someone else.

You still haven't identified what it was I said, which you took as
implying, that people who are still farming are shortsighted.

Michael Percy wrote in message
news
On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 07:12:41 +0000, Jim Webster wrote:
I believe I had noticed that. Pity he dropped out; I had planned
on
asking him what a tenant farmer should have done once I was clear
on
what his views on an owner-occupier was.

.. as if you did not look silly enough already .. lol


and your advice to the tenant farmer would have been what?

Jim, I do not think dealing with hypothetical questions is the right
thing now.

.. as if you did not look silly enough already .. lol?
--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'



Mike

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 16:20:08 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...

You still haven't identified what it was I said, which you took as
implying, that people who are still farming are shortsighted.


From: Torsten Brinch
Newsgroups: uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
Subject: UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:55:45 +0100
.....But that isn't the point. UK had in 1996 a farm income peak, the
highest in 20 years. The Times could see what would come after, so why
couldn't the farmers.

"The Times could see what could come after so why couldn't the farmers'
Does this not imply shortsightedness?

No, it's an expression of my disbelief, that the farmers could not
see the same as The Times could see.


Goodbye.
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 18:17:08 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 16:20:08 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...

You still haven't identified what it was I said, which you took as
implying, that people who are still farming are shortsighted.


From: Torsten Brinch
Newsgroups: uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
Subject: UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:55:45 +0100
.....But that isn't the point. UK had in 1996 a farm income peak, the
highest in 20 years. The Times could see what would come after, so why
couldn't the farmers.

"The Times could see what could come after so why couldn't the farmers'
Does this not imply shortsightedness?

No, it's an expression of my disbelief, that the farmers could not
see the same as The Times could see.


Goodbye.

If I may make an observation, before you must leave, I think what we
have experienced is a clash of cultures. My culture is one of fixing
problems, your culture seems to be one in which fixing blame is
imperative. Perhaps if we both keep that difference in mind we will
leave less room for future misunderstanding.

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
"The Times could see what could come after so why couldn't the farmers'
Does this not imply shortsightedness?

No, it's an expression of my disbelief, that the farmers could not
see the same as The Times could see.

Or perhaps, as has been said, they saw it but were not in a position to
do very much. You have interpreted inaction and subsequent whinging as
lack of foresight when it might have been a rugged determination to see
the thing through.


Goodbye.

If I may make an observation, before you must leave, I think what we
have experienced is a clash of cultures. My culture is one of fixing
problems, your culture seems to be one in which fixing blame is
imperative. Perhaps if we both keep that difference in mind we will
leave less room for future misunderstanding.

The UK is not known for the value of it's agricultural exports, unlike
America and some others. In consequence, Government encouragement is
rather lukewarm and *fixing* left to the individual farmer. That so many
are still in business may be a mark of their achievement.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 21:14:08 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

You have interpreted inaction and subsequent whinging as lack of foresight
when snip

ROFL. I have not.

m-)


Spring 1997: "The [Agricultural Wages Board]'s pay award of 3.75%
means an increase of GBP 5.81 to bring the current basic minimum wage
to GBP 160.85 for a 39-hour week. There will be pro rata increases for
all other adult rates, and the increases will also apply to casual
workers. This means that minimum wages will now range from that
mentioned above to GBP 178.00 for crafts grades and GBP 209.32 for a
grade one worker. .. According to the National Farmers Union (NFU),
farm incomes began to fall in 1996 after a period of recovery."

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 18:17:08 -0000, David P
wrote:



If I may make an observation, before you must leave, I think what we
have experienced is a clash of cultures. My culture is one of fixing
problems, your culture seems to be one in which fixing blame is
imperative. Perhaps if we both keep that difference in mind we will
leave less room for future misunderstanding.

you culture is one of someone who turns up to work in the secure
knowledge that their working presence is enough to entitle them to a
salary. How can you expect to cope with understanding someone whose
entire life savings and asset base are locked into their business?


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 18:17:08 -0000, David P
wrote:



If I may make an observation, before you must leave, I think what we
have experienced is a clash of cultures. My culture is one of fixing
problems, your culture seems to be one in which fixing blame is
imperative. Perhaps if we both keep that difference in mind we will
leave less room for future misunderstanding.

you culture is one of someone who turns up to work in the secure
knowledge that their working presence is enough to entitle them to a
salary. How can you expect to cope with understanding someone whose
entire life savings and asset base are locked into their business?

I spent the the last part of my life making thing work as well and I come to
an entirely different conclusion over here. With low interest rates
investments in irrigation systems are quite attractive from the landlords
and the tenants point of view particularly when you factor in the benefits
of no till cropping. It can increase my income by a factor of 2 or 3
including payments and decrease the farmers per unit costs about 40%.

I am not just talking either we are spending real money.

Gordon

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 19:52:41 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message

Which WTO ruling are you thinking of?

The one on US beef.

There is a ruling that the beef hormone ban must be based on a risk
assessment, if that is what you are thunking of -- but the ban is
rather obviously based on a risk assessment. Indeed, on the thread
*EU confirms growth hormones pose health risk to consumers*
we discussed the most recent EU risk assessment in support of the ban,
on sci.agriculture only six months ago.

Wiht no evidence just another trade barrier for which the EU paying a fine.

I wonder what happens if the US decides to press the case of GM crops with
the WTO?

Gordon

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

Gordon Couger wrote in message
...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

Gordon Couger wrote in message
...


If they don't feel they need farmers why are they subsiding them?


here you confuse the EU and UK. Whenever there is a voluntary
scheme,
the UK does not pay out on it, if the EU allow an extra top up if a
national government deems it necessary, the UK government doesn't
deem
it necessary.

Love them or loathe them, If it wasn't for the EU there probably
would
not be organised agriculture in the UK any more, a handful of really
big
cereal operations and a lot of part time "ranching" of cattle and
sheep
at no input stocking rates.

I am confusing the two. So the UK doesn't contribute any to the
farmer?

the thing about the Common Agricultural Policy is that it is common and
the EU lays down regulations to ensure that it is stuck to. An example
is the "green currency". Basically pre euro, and for those countries not
in the euro zone, farm subsidies were/are paid in ecu/euro. As your
currency strengthens against the euro the amount of subsidy you farmers
get falls, as your currency weakens against the euro the amount farmers
get increases.
To stop countries running a weak currency and siphoning money off europe
into their agriculture the EU set up a system to ensure that at regular
intervals, or if currencies fluctuated outside certain limits, the
"green" currency was revalued meaning farmers got the same Euros as they
would have if their currency had remained static against the Euro.
Hence when the Pound crashed out of the ERM on black wednesday we did
OK, because we got more euros. Just briefly until the falling £ hit
another band and the green £ was revalued. When the £ goes up and is
strong against the Euro then the member state can pay money to make up
the difference so their farmers don't miss out.
The rules for weak currencies are statutory, countries have no choice.
The EU knows its member states and tries to put in rules to stop them
unfairly favouring their own nationals.
The rules for strong currencies aren't compulsory because the EU
couldn't believe that a member state would knowingly crucify it's own
industries.
Needless to say the UK government has paid only a proportion of the
money necessary to compensate for the strong currency, and calculations
show (you can get the figures of the statistics sections of the defra
website) that over a billion £ sterling are being sucked out of UK
agriculture every year. It is probable that already not paying this
money to UK agriculture has already covered the costs of BSE.



Half the beef in the US is rasied by the guy with a job in town and
few head
at home. It is a real concern how to get him the better genetics that
he
needs to move in the right direction.


we have smallholders and I don't think that there is any government
outreach to them. They can get drawn into the net of paperwork and form
filling but will probably not get much in the way of support payments.
=====================
There is not much paper work over here. If you go off the program it's no
big deal. Progams only cover small grains, cotton beans, corn, feed grains
peants and few more. Fruits, vetgables and such are not under any kind of
price support. Some cattlmen have nothing to do with govement programs
except the disease programs.

No till has the potential to put farming in the same boat. I look at
that
and think I could buy a old tractor and a planter and farm a couple of
quarters of cotton with a good scout and spray plane and make money at
it
particularly if I put in a center pivot and drilled enough wells to
get
water for it. Now that we have the boll weevil under control and BT
cotton
lets us spray for insects with out having to continue to spray once a
week
to keep the boll worm out if we kill the beneficial insects. It makes
cotton
a new deal.

I could probably even hire the planting done. But that gets a bit
dicey.
You gamble on someone being free when you need them and that is far
from a
sure thing. I made a lot of nice money running tractors round the
clock so I
could have some extra time to hire out to others at critical times.


round here we have a lot of contractors, more small farmers, farmers
sons or similar who have a tractor, slurry tanker, round baler and
wrapper, etc. Some will do mowing, ploughing etc. There are outfits who
can put a couple of silage teams into the field (self propelled
harvester, three tractors and trailers, a rake, two mowers and a loading
shovel for the pit) but these are the minority.


Where you aren't big enough to capitalize your equipment contracting or
partnerships can make it work. The thing is if things get tough people cut
out contractors first.

Gordon

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
...
Wiht no evidence just another trade barrier for which the EU paying a
fine.

I wonder what happens if the US decides to press the case of GM crops with
the WTO?


Does the WTO have any mandate for goods banned in an area?

This would suggest that American gun manufacturers could complain that
Britain is curbing their trade by blocking imports.

Ig GM crops are banned from all sources I don't see that WTO has any
authority.

"Hamish Macbeth" wrote in message
...

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
...
Wiht no evidence just another trade barrier for which the EU paying a
fine.

I wonder what happens if the US decides to press the case of GM crops
with
the WTO?


Does the WTO have any mandate for goods banned in an area?

This would suggest that American gun manufacturers could complain that
Britain is curbing their trade by blocking imports.

Ig GM crops are banned from all sources I don't see that WTO has any
authority.

The US postition is there is no differnce in GM crops and anyohter crop. We
don't treat them any differntly after they are approved and there is no
evidence that there is any danger more danger from them than any other food.
In fact are cases that conventional breeding has produced food that was
harmful to people that has been marketed that the approval process that GM
crops go through would have caught.

The Italian Environment Ministers speech follows

Gordon.


Are genetically modified organisms a threat to health and the
ecosystem, or a solution to combat hunger in the world and to protect the
environment?

Scientists and experts in bioethics addressed that question in a
debate organized last week by the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum in
collaboration with the Italian Ministry of the Environment.

Given the question "GMO: Frankenstein's food or defeat of hunger?,"
Corrado Clini, director general of the Italian Ministry of the Environment,
answered that the "new vegetable technologies represent a great opportunity
for the protection of the environment and the growth of food resources."

Biotechnologies are a key tool to combat the lack of food in many
developing countries, Clini said. Moreover, "in the cultivation of
transgenic maize, soybean and cotton the need for pesticides is drastically
reduced, while productivity increases in marginal soils."

In his address, Clini mentioned the prospect of the production of
edible vaccines that could be used to combat widespread diseases in
developing countries.

"Despite this," he said, "there is widespread concern in Europe over
the consumption of transgenic foods. In particular, among consumers the
equation 'GMO equals risk' has been widely disseminated."

Clini continued: "However, in 2001, research carried out by the
European Commission, which involved over 400 public bodies for 15 years,
came to the conclusion that there are no evident effects on health from
biotech products, while negative effects can be found deriving from the use
of pesticides and incorrect agricultural practices in traditional
agriculture."

Now, the European Union has a marginal role in research and
experimentation of new vegetable biotechnologies. In 2001, the production of
biotech plants in Europe represented 0.03% of the world production. The same
year, 44 experimentations in the field were authorized in Europe, as
compared to 256 in 1997.

The point at which biotechnological research has arrived was the focus
of an address by Milan University professor Francesco Sala. "With the
integration of one or a few genes," Sala said, "resistance can be conferred
to the principal parasites of cultivated plants, just as it is possible to
offer resistance to drought, salinity and cold."

It is also possible "to produce plants with high nutritive value --
more vitamins, proteins, antioxidants -- plants that synthesize vaccines
against infectious diseases and tumors -- cholera, hepatitis, AIDS,
melanoma -- new fuels and new plastics," the professor added.

The applications are innumerable in the protection of the environment.
It is possible to develop "plants that purify the soils of industrial
contamination -- lead, mercury and chrome, for example," Sala added.

Nor can one forget "the considerable increase of productivity foreseen
with the use of the new plants," something that, according to Sala, will
make it possible "to reduce the need to cut down forests in poor countries
to produce more food and materials for human use. Rich countries will also
be able to restore to nature -- and, therefore, to biodiversity -- part of
the land currently devoted to agriculture."

Given the opposition to biotechnology in Europe, Sala recalled the
research carried out by the European Community on the safety of genetically
modified plants.

"The official conclusion states: 'The risks for man and for the
environment derived from the use of these plants are not greater than those
we have always accepted in traditional agricultural products. What is more,
given that they are controlled, products derived from genetically modified
plants often present fewer risks and greater benefits,'" Sala quoted.

For her part, Nathalie Louise Moll, responsible for Assobiotech's
institutional relations, referred to a demonstration by 1,000 African
farmers who called for "freedom of choice" in this field, during the summit
on development last August in Johannesburg.

The African farmers were claiming the dignity of being protagonists of
their own future, she said.

"I spoke with one of these farmers, who told me: 'I would like to come
home in the afternoons and say to my wife: Look, this is the fruit of my
work,'" Moll recalled. "African farmers want GMOs."



begin 666 spacer.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`(#_`,# P ```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 21:14:08 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

You have interpreted inaction and subsequent whinging as lack of foresight
when snip

ROFL. I have not.

m-)


Spring 1997: "The [Agricultural Wages Board]'s pay award of 3.75%
means an increase of GBP 5.81 to bring the current basic minimum wage
to GBP 160.85 for a 39-hour week. There will be pro rata increases for
all other adult rates, and the increases will also apply to casual
workers. This means that minimum wages will now range from that
mentioned above to GBP 178.00 for crafts grades and GBP 209.32 for a
grade one worker. .. According to the National Farmers Union (NFU),
farm incomes began to fall in 1996 after a period of recovery."

This is part of the same tune. You have convinced me beyond all possible
argument that British farmers were aware of the coming downturn in their
fortunes.

Our collective breath is held pending your suggestions as to how we
should have *fixed* things.

Gordon has hinted that capital investment at low interest rates works in
the USA. However, he also implies that his crops are held back for lack
of moisture. This is not usually a problem here.

We have seen a small number of farms amalgamate to make better use of
machinery, there may have been a move toward minimal cultivation, there
has certainly been a shedding of labour.

My personal plan; approaching 60 and with no succession, is to transfer
capital away from food production towards low labour requirement, income
earning, diversification.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:01:56 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote:

One of the problems is that it makes sense for the individual to sell up
and get out of farming. But if everyone does the same the markets for
land and surplus farm machinery, and all the other assets of the farming
business, will collapse. And nobody gets anything.

I don't think it makes sense for any individual farmer to sell up and
get out of farming -- I consider it a reasonable assumption that UK
will also be farmed in 10, 20 or 30 years from now on. Iow, some will
make a living from it. The problem would seem to me to be, that to the
extent land left idle from one set of managing hands cannot be taken
over smoothly by another set of managing hands, land values will come
under pressure, and people will get hurt.

The current land prices, from what I hear, are not all that stable.
Some of the big estate agency companies are admitting that not a lot of
land is actually selling.

Some of the not actually selling land may genuinely not have a buyer,
but more likely it's not selling, because the owner holds it in too
high value. I think it would be correct to say, the outlook for
further increases in land values in the foreseeable future is not
fair.

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
This is part of the same tune. You have convinced me beyond all possible
argument that British farmers were aware of the coming downturn in their
fortunes.

That's amazing, Tim, I haven't been trying to convince you of that.
I find it hard to believe that all British farmers were aware of the
coming downturn.

Hmm.. Well I'm pretty sure that I was and I don't claim to be in the
forefront of UK farming.
The McSharry reforms were in error AIU and quickly adjusted in
subsequent years.


Our collective breath is held pending your suggestions as to how we
should have *fixed* things.

Why?

As part of an international exercise in sharing national
characteristics? Had a similar downturn occurred in Denmark, how would
your farmers have responded?

regards


--
Tim Lamb