"Tim" wrote in message
newsprrezn51vwxhha1@localhost...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:58:49 +0000 (UTC), Pat Gardiner
wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message
newsprrdo64yqwxhha1@localhost...
On 26 Jun 2003 13:46:11 GMT, Nick Maclaren wrote:


In article oprrdgeij4wxhha1@localhost,
Tim writes:
| | But that was 1999, did they look at the 2001 amendments ? Which
to
my | untrained eye looks like the 1999 Order has been changed to
only
apply to | catering businesses kitchens and farms etc. What the
order
says is that any | waste from COMMERCIAL kitchens can't be
composted.
So
unless you run a | business from your ktichen you're ok.

No, that is a tightening of the 1999 order.

I read it as shifting the emphasis.


| But I don't see what the problem is because the 1999 order applies
to
| feeding animals waste, not to making compost. I am hard pushed to
find
any | connection - unless you keep animals on your land, or you let
your
compost | be fed to other animals. The amendment has changed this to
make it clearer | that it applies to commercial waste and/or farm
animals. I'm sort of | discussing this with Nick at the moment.

Read it again. Look at sections 3 and 5, for example. Non-Vegan
kitchen waste is probably an animal product under the order.

Sorry, I can't see what you mean. I think it all hinges on the
definition
of animal by-products:

From the 1999 order:

'Interpretation and scope

Snip for clarity

At the risk of taking this slightly beyond the realms of gardening.
There
are a number of problems with the legality of compost heaps that we are
now
encountering.

We grow pretty well everything edible and raise pigs, poultry, sheep and
cattle - all on a very small scale.

The reasonable desire to keep animal scraps away from animals, leads
into
some very strange country.

We now have problems keeping a pig and a compost heap. The theory being
that
we might put kitchen waste which might contain scraps which might get to
the
pig. So basically the combination is banned. Pigs or compost heaps, not
both
UNLESS and we are lucky, you have a separate sink away from the kitchen
in
which vegetables are prepared. We are lucky, we do.

I say "pigs" because we are no longer allowed to keep a single sow
(animal
welfare). So that is the end of the cottager's pig. In reality that
means
a
minimum of two sows plus one (spare) and the prospect of up to thirty
plus
piglets per year. We are not commercial, we sell nothing, so this new
legislation is causing very real problems. The combinations of
restrictions
are starting to make our lifestyle impossible.

There is no doubt that quite aside from the silly scare stories in the
newspapers, new rules are now invading territory that was once the
protected
preserve of the amateur.

I can see that being a big problem. Especially as the concepts of keeping
a
few animals for yourself and composting are not from a totally different
planet. Maybe the bit in the amanement applies -where they use the
definiteion of livestock, instead of animal. Livestock being any animals
used for farming. Would your situation be regarded as farming or not? I
expect it would, as I expect Sod's Law to apply wherever possible.

Well, the drafting of all the regulations is pretty anti-amateur. Most
offences are also "criminal." Much is left to the discretion of officials,
many of whom can be pretty unsympathetic on occasions.

Most of the regulations have been though a consultation stage with
"stakeholders" playing a prominent part. Most of these stakeholders are
large commercial organisations. They either forget the small non-businesses
independent man or woman or are pretty openly contemptuous and hostile.

A case in point were the proposals for "fallen stock." As you can imagine
many of our animals are allowed to live out their lives on our premises.
Breeding stock that was born here and given us many offspring become very
much a pet. We don't send them off to slaughter, if it can be avoided
without cruelty.

The first Canadian BSE cow was went for slaughter even though it could not
stand. That's not for us.

Now we are not allowed even to bury a chicken. The government scheme, if it
ever gets going, costs us Pounds 50 a year (the minimum). The maximum for a
3,000 sow factory farm or a massive turkey operation, with many casualties,
is Pounds 200 per year. That is simply not fair treatment.

The regulations are difficult to interpret and always seem to err on the
side of heavy regulation and draconian penalties. The big intensive
operators win.

Now, this will affect very few gardeners. Most smallholders do sell
something, so are some kind of business albeit small. But we sell nothing,
just like the average gardener or allotment holder.

In case, you think all this is pretty academic, we took a call yesterday
from Trading Standards to check their records on what livestock we kept and
to check if we had a licence for mixing feed. We don't, since we now stay
out of potential trouble by buying all our feed commercially.

The days of leaning into the paddock and treating the pig to an apple core
or throwing some scraps of bread and cake to the chickens have gone, it
seems. The exact opposite of what was intended.

Without being an expert on the regulations (who is?) I can see no exemption
for an allotment holder with a few chickens to give their family fresh eggs.

Now everyone will say, "they could not possibly!"

Well they could. A theoretical case can be made because of Salmonella or
Avian Flu for the small amateur, just as for the big intensive operator
selling to the supermarket.

Registration of allotments - and the question do you have any livestock
there? Who is your feed supplier?

I don't want to be alarmist, but the events of the last few years in the
countryside have left many of us badly shaken. Ask them in Devon or Cumbria.

It pays to be vigilant, and not all the scare stories are that wide of the
mark.


--
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com




Tim.

Tim.

"Tim" wrote in message
newsprrezn51vwxhha1@localhost...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:58:49 +0000 (UTC), Pat Gardiner
wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message
newsprrdo64yqwxhha1@localhost...
On 26 Jun 2003 13:46:11 GMT, Nick Maclaren wrote:


In article oprrdgeij4wxhha1@localhost,
Tim writes:
| | But that was 1999, did they look at the 2001 amendments ? Which
to
my | untrained eye looks like the 1999 Order has been changed to
only
apply to | catering businesses kitchens and farms etc. What the
order
says is that any | waste from COMMERCIAL kitchens can't be
composted.
So
unless you run a | business from your ktichen you're ok.

No, that is a tightening of the 1999 order.

I read it as shifting the emphasis.


| But I don't see what the problem is because the 1999 order applies
to
| feeding animals waste, not to making compost. I am hard pushed to
find
any | connection - unless you keep animals on your land, or you let
your
compost | be fed to other animals. The amendment has changed this to
make it clearer | that it applies to commercial waste and/or farm
animals. I'm sort of | discussing this with Nick at the moment.

Read it again. Look at sections 3 and 5, for example. Non-Vegan
kitchen waste is probably an animal product under the order.

Sorry, I can't see what you mean. I think it all hinges on the
definition
of animal by-products:

From the 1999 order:

'Interpretation and scope

Snip for clarity

At the risk of taking this slightly beyond the realms of gardening.
There
are a number of problems with the legality of compost heaps that we are
now
encountering.

We grow pretty well everything edible and raise pigs, poultry, sheep and
cattle - all on a very small scale.

The reasonable desire to keep animal scraps away from animals, leads
into
some very strange country.

We now have problems keeping a pig and a compost heap. The theory being
that
we might put kitchen waste which might contain scraps which might get to
the
pig. So basically the combination is banned. Pigs or compost heaps, not
both
UNLESS and we are lucky, you have a separate sink away from the kitchen
in
which vegetables are prepared. We are lucky, we do.

I say "pigs" because we are no longer allowed to keep a single sow
(animal
welfare). So that is the end of the cottager's pig. In reality that
means
a
minimum of two sows plus one (spare) and the prospect of up to thirty
plus
piglets per year. We are not commercial, we sell nothing, so this new
legislation is causing very real problems. The combinations of
restrictions
are starting to make our lifestyle impossible.

There is no doubt that quite aside from the silly scare stories in the
newspapers, new rules are now invading territory that was once the
protected
preserve of the amateur.

I can see that being a big problem. Especially as the concepts of keeping
a
few animals for yourself and composting are not from a totally different
planet. Maybe the bit in the amanement applies -where they use the
definiteion of livestock, instead of animal. Livestock being any animals
used for farming. Would your situation be regarded as farming or not? I
expect it would, as I expect Sod's Law to apply wherever possible.

Well, the drafting of all the regulations is pretty anti-amateur. Most
offences are also "criminal." Much is left to the discretion of officials,
many of whom can be pretty unsympathetic on occasions.

Most of the regulations have been though a consultation stage with
"stakeholders" playing a prominent part. Most of these stakeholders are
large commercial organisations. They either forget the small non-businesses
independent man or woman or are pretty openly contemptuous and hostile.

A case in point were the proposals for "fallen stock." As you can imagine
many of our animals are allowed to live out their lives on our premises.
Breeding stock that was born here and given us many offspring become very
much a pet. We don't send them off to slaughter, if it can be avoided
without cruelty.

The first Canadian BSE cow was went for slaughter even though it could not
stand. That's not for us.

Now we are not allowed even to bury a chicken. The government scheme, if it
ever gets going, costs us Pounds 50 a year (the minimum). The maximum for a
3,000 sow factory farm or a massive turkey operation, with many casualties,
is Pounds 200 per year. That is simply not fair treatment.

The regulations are difficult to interpret and always seem to err on the
side of heavy regulation and draconian penalties. The big intensive
operators win.

Now, this will affect very few gardeners. Most smallholders do sell
something, so are some kind of business albeit small. But we sell nothing,
just like the average gardener or allotment holder.

In case, you think all this is pretty academic, we took a call yesterday
from Trading Standards to check their records on what livestock we kept and
to check if we had a licence for mixing feed. We don't, since we now stay
out of potential trouble by buying all our feed commercially.

The days of leaning into the paddock and treating the pig to an apple core
or throwing some scraps of bread and cake to the chickens have gone, it
seems. The exact opposite of what was intended.

Without being an expert on the regulations (who is?) I can see no exemption
for an allotment holder with a few chickens to give their family fresh eggs.

Now everyone will say, "they could not possibly!"

Well they could. A theoretical case can be made because of Salmonella or
Avian Flu for the small amateur, just as for the big intensive operator
selling to the supermarket.

Registration of allotments - and the question do you have any livestock
there? Who is your feed supplier?

I don't want to be alarmist, but the events of the last few years in the
countryside have left many of us badly shaken. Ask them in Devon or Cumbria.

It pays to be vigilant, and not all the scare stories are that wide of the
mark.


--
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com




Tim.

Tim.

"Tim" wrote in message
newsprrezn51vwxhha1@localhost...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:58:49 +0000 (UTC), Pat Gardiner
wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message
newsprrdo64yqwxhha1@localhost...
On 26 Jun 2003 13:46:11 GMT, Nick Maclaren wrote:


In article oprrdgeij4wxhha1@localhost,
Tim writes:
| | But that was 1999, did they look at the 2001 amendments ? Which
to
my | untrained eye looks like the 1999 Order has been changed to
only
apply to | catering businesses kitchens and farms etc. What the
order
says is that any | waste from COMMERCIAL kitchens can't be
composted.
So
unless you run a | business from your ktichen you're ok.

No, that is a tightening of the 1999 order.

I read it as shifting the emphasis.


| But I don't see what the problem is because the 1999 order applies
to
| feeding animals waste, not to making compost. I am hard pushed to
find
any | connection - unless you keep animals on your land, or you let
your
compost | be fed to other animals. The amendment has changed this to
make it clearer | that it applies to commercial waste and/or farm
animals. I'm sort of | discussing this with Nick at the moment.

Read it again. Look at sections 3 and 5, for example. Non-Vegan
kitchen waste is probably an animal product under the order.

Sorry, I can't see what you mean. I think it all hinges on the
definition
of animal by-products:

From the 1999 order:

'Interpretation and scope

Snip for clarity

At the risk of taking this slightly beyond the realms of gardening.
There
are a number of problems with the legality of compost heaps that we are
now
encountering.

We grow pretty well everything edible and raise pigs, poultry, sheep and
cattle - all on a very small scale.

The reasonable desire to keep animal scraps away from animals, leads
into
some very strange country.

We now have problems keeping a pig and a compost heap. The theory being
that
we might put kitchen waste which might contain scraps which might get to
the
pig. So basically the combination is banned. Pigs or compost heaps, not
both
UNLESS and we are lucky, you have a separate sink away from the kitchen
in
which vegetables are prepared. We are lucky, we do.

I say "pigs" because we are no longer allowed to keep a single sow
(animal
welfare). So that is the end of the cottager's pig. In reality that
means
a
minimum of two sows plus one (spare) and the prospect of up to thirty
plus
piglets per year. We are not commercial, we sell nothing, so this new
legislation is causing very real problems. The combinations of
restrictions
are starting to make our lifestyle impossible.

There is no doubt that quite aside from the silly scare stories in the
newspapers, new rules are now invading territory that was once the
protected
preserve of the amateur.

I can see that being a big problem. Especially as the concepts of keeping
a
few animals for yourself and composting are not from a totally different
planet. Maybe the bit in the amanement applies -where they use the
definiteion of livestock, instead of animal. Livestock being any animals
used for farming. Would your situation be regarded as farming or not? I
expect it would, as I expect Sod's Law to apply wherever possible.

Well, the drafting of all the regulations is pretty anti-amateur. Most
offences are also "criminal." Much is left to the discretion of officials,
many of whom can be pretty unsympathetic on occasions.

Most of the regulations have been though a consultation stage with
"stakeholders" playing a prominent part. Most of these stakeholders are
large commercial organisations. They either forget the small non-businesses
independent man or woman or are pretty openly contemptuous and hostile.

A case in point were the proposals for "fallen stock." As you can imagine
many of our animals are allowed to live out their lives on our premises.
Breeding stock that was born here and given us many offspring become very
much a pet. We don't send them off to slaughter, if it can be avoided
without cruelty.

The first Canadian BSE cow was went for slaughter even though it could not
stand. That's not for us.

Now we are not allowed even to bury a chicken. The government scheme, if it
ever gets going, costs us Pounds 50 a year (the minimum). The maximum for a
3,000 sow factory farm or a massive turkey operation, with many casualties,
is Pounds 200 per year. That is simply not fair treatment.

The regulations are difficult to interpret and always seem to err on the
side of heavy regulation and draconian penalties. The big intensive
operators win.

Now, this will affect very few gardeners. Most smallholders do sell
something, so are some kind of business albeit small. But we sell nothing,
just like the average gardener or allotment holder.

In case, you think all this is pretty academic, we took a call yesterday
from Trading Standards to check their records on what livestock we kept and
to check if we had a licence for mixing feed. We don't, since we now stay
out of potential trouble by buying all our feed commercially.

The days of leaning into the paddock and treating the pig to an apple core
or throwing some scraps of bread and cake to the chickens have gone, it
seems. The exact opposite of what was intended.

Without being an expert on the regulations (who is?) I can see no exemption
for an allotment holder with a few chickens to give their family fresh eggs.

Now everyone will say, "they could not possibly!"

Well they could. A theoretical case can be made because of Salmonella or
Avian Flu for the small amateur, just as for the big intensive operator
selling to the supermarket.

Registration of allotments - and the question do you have any livestock
there? Who is your feed supplier?

I don't want to be alarmist, but the events of the last few years in the
countryside have left many of us badly shaken. Ask them in Devon or Cumbria.

It pays to be vigilant, and not all the scare stories are that wide of the
mark.


--
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com




Tim.

Tim.

"Tim" wrote in message
newsprrezn51vwxhha1@localhost...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:58:49 +0000 (UTC), Pat Gardiner
wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message
newsprrdo64yqwxhha1@localhost...
On 26 Jun 2003 13:46:11 GMT, Nick Maclaren wrote:


In article oprrdgeij4wxhha1@localhost,
Tim writes:
| | But that was 1999, did they look at the 2001 amendments ? Which
to
my | untrained eye looks like the 1999 Order has been changed to
only
apply to | catering businesses kitchens and farms etc. What the
order
says is that any | waste from COMMERCIAL kitchens can't be
composted.
So
unless you run a | business from your ktichen you're ok.

No, that is a tightening of the 1999 order.

I read it as shifting the emphasis.


| But I don't see what the problem is because the 1999 order applies
to
| feeding animals waste, not to making compost. I am hard pushed to
find
any | connection - unless you keep animals on your land, or you let
your
compost | be fed to other animals. The amendment has changed this to
make it clearer | that it applies to commercial waste and/or farm
animals. I'm sort of | discussing this with Nick at the moment.

Read it again. Look at sections 3 and 5, for example. Non-Vegan
kitchen waste is probably an animal product under the order.

Sorry, I can't see what you mean. I think it all hinges on the
definition
of animal by-products:

From the 1999 order:

'Interpretation and scope

Snip for clarity

At the risk of taking this slightly beyond the realms of gardening.
There
are a number of problems with the legality of compost heaps that we are
now
encountering.

We grow pretty well everything edible and raise pigs, poultry, sheep and
cattle - all on a very small scale.

The reasonable desire to keep animal scraps away from animals, leads
into
some very strange country.

We now have problems keeping a pig and a compost heap. The theory being
that
we might put kitchen waste which might contain scraps which might get to
the
pig. So basically the combination is banned. Pigs or compost heaps, not
both
UNLESS and we are lucky, you have a separate sink away from the kitchen
in
which vegetables are prepared. We are lucky, we do.

I say "pigs" because we are no longer allowed to keep a single sow
(animal
welfare). So that is the end of the cottager's pig. In reality that
means
a
minimum of two sows plus one (spare) and the prospect of up to thirty
plus
piglets per year. We are not commercial, we sell nothing, so this new
legislation is causing very real problems. The combinations of
restrictions
are starting to make our lifestyle impossible.

There is no doubt that quite aside from the silly scare stories in the
newspapers, new rules are now invading territory that was once the
protected
preserve of the amateur.

I can see that being a big problem. Especially as the concepts of keeping
a
few animals for yourself and composting are not from a totally different
planet. Maybe the bit in the amanement applies -where they use the
definiteion of livestock, instead of animal. Livestock being any animals
used for farming. Would your situation be regarded as farming or not? I
expect it would, as I expect Sod's Law to apply wherever possible.

Well, the drafting of all the regulations is pretty anti-amateur. Most
offences are also "criminal." Much is left to the discretion of officials,
many of whom can be pretty unsympathetic on occasions.

Most of the regulations have been though a consultation stage with
"stakeholders" playing a prominent part. Most of these stakeholders are
large commercial organisations. They either forget the small non-businesses
independent man or woman or are pretty openly contemptuous and hostile.

A case in point were the proposals for "fallen stock." As you can imagine
many of our animals are allowed to live out their lives on our premises.
Breeding stock that was born here and given us many offspring become very
much a pet. We don't send them off to slaughter, if it can be avoided
without cruelty.

The first Canadian BSE cow was went for slaughter even though it could not
stand. That's not for us.

Now we are not allowed even to bury a chicken. The government scheme, if it
ever gets going, costs us Pounds 50 a year (the minimum). The maximum for a
3,000 sow factory farm or a massive turkey operation, with many casualties,
is Pounds 200 per year. That is simply not fair treatment.

The regulations are difficult to interpret and always seem to err on the
side of heavy regulation and draconian penalties. The big intensive
operators win.

Now, this will affect very few gardeners. Most smallholders do sell
something, so are some kind of business albeit small. But we sell nothing,
just like the average gardener or allotment holder.

In case, you think all this is pretty academic, we took a call yesterday
from Trading Standards to check their records on what livestock we kept and
to check if we had a licence for mixing feed. We don't, since we now stay
out of potential trouble by buying all our feed commercially.

The days of leaning into the paddock and treating the pig to an apple core
or throwing some scraps of bread and cake to the chickens have gone, it
seems. The exact opposite of what was intended.

Without being an expert on the regulations (who is?) I can see no exemption
for an allotment holder with a few chickens to give their family fresh eggs.

Now everyone will say, "they could not possibly!"

Well they could. A theoretical case can be made because of Salmonella or
Avian Flu for the small amateur, just as for the big intensive operator
selling to the supermarket.

Registration of allotments - and the question do you have any livestock
there? Who is your feed supplier?

I don't want to be alarmist, but the events of the last few years in the
countryside have left many of us badly shaken. Ask them in Devon or Cumbria.

It pays to be vigilant, and not all the scare stories are that wide of the
mark.


--
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com




Tim.

Tim.

In article ,
"Pat Gardiner" writes:
|
| The days of leaning into the paddock and treating the pig to an apple core
| or throwing some scraps of bread and cake to the chickens have gone, it
| seems. The exact opposite of what was intended.

The exact opposite of what was intended by the EU. I don't think
that Whitehall intended anything different. Small organisations
and private business-like activities are regarded as a nuisance,
to be actively discouraged even when not explicitly forbidden.
This has been the de facto policy for at least 50 years.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

(Nick Maclaren) wrote in message ...
In article ,
"Pat Gardiner" writes:
|
| The days of leaning into the paddock and treating the pig to an apple core
| or throwing some scraps of bread and cake to the chickens have gone, it
| seems. The exact opposite of what was intended.

The exact opposite of what was intended by the EU. I don't think
that Whitehall intended anything different. Small organisations
and private business-like activities are regarded as a nuisance,
to be actively discouraged even when not explicitly forbidden.
This has been the de facto policy for at least 50 years.

Whereas in France, Spain, you name it, where they respect peasants and
their contribution to gastronomy, they avoid enforcing the dafter
regulations even after they've exhausted all possible contortions to
keep them off their statute-books for as long as possible. But even in
France, beware Monsanto (ask José Bové, at present in the nique).

Mike.

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:06:21 +0100, "Brian Watson"
wrote:

Try Daily Mail/Telegraphs archives. Both are famous for this sort of
"silly
season" EU stuff.

Do they actually believe the rubbish they print?

Some will.

But their intention is to preach to the converted and the gullible.
--
Brian
"Stuck down a hole, in the fog, in the middle of the night, with an owl."

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:54:03 +0100, "Brian Watson"
wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:06:21 +0100, "Brian Watson"
wrote:

Try Daily Mail/Telegraphs archives. Both are famous for this sort of
"silly
season" EU stuff.

Do they actually believe the rubbish they print?

Some will.

But their intention is to preach to the converted and the gullible.

and mainly to pump the newspaper owner's idiot biases into the naive.
--
martin

In article , Janet Baraclough
writes


Even totally mad people can distinguish teabags from disposable nappies.

(Waits to be told that in Cambridge/Africa all the tea tastes like pee
and all the babies have boiled bottoms.)

Janet.

But it might explain my sister's tea!
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk