« Ken Clarke: Visionary or ogre? | Main | Palace on the line »

June 29, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

patrick

I'd like to make a clear distinction between organic farms which i feel are productive against the intensive farm that are very destructive.

Whilst i realise that farmers actions are directed by the CAP and Government policy (both of which are pathetic), let's look at what these actions offer the nation.

The mass majority of intensive farms offer us ....

- Contaminated, pesticide wridden foods
- year on year soil depletion
- wildlife deserts
- massive public subsidies
- Livestock on some do not even go outside a shed

Only an NFU suit, intensive farmer,Member of ICI/ Monsanto,or a complete idiot would say this is good for our nation.

What would Organic farming offer us?

- Healthier food produced without chemics
- Soil science aimed at restoration and sustainability (without chemics)and supported by the Soil Association.
- Land management that would RESTORE biodiversity
- The return of smaller family farms.

I'm not suggesting the organic system would be cheaper or dearer. It would need subsidy especially for the small farm.

We need to push aside the money grubbers and do what's right for the nations health and biodiversity!

Edward Verse

Blakeyboy needs to ask why on earth farmers require subsidies anyway. Show me a business reliant on subsidy and I will show you an uncompetitive failure. This is the only sector of society where I actually do support 'union bashing!'

patrick


Blake2pi

Perhaps you should be asking yourself

WHY ……

- MAFF figures 1972-1996 found just 4608 TB badgers out of 42,130 sampled

- 55,000 badgers culled over 35 years, in exactly the same very localised hotspots 1975-2005 with no effect in reducing cattle TB, nor in stopping the inexorable rise since mid-1980s

- There have been well over 75,000 badgers culled in Ireland with no demonstrable effect either, indeed DAF'S Liam Downey famously told the first ICMB Dublin Conference 1991, "Of course we've know for years that badger culls don’t work "...

-The Krebs/RBCT cull found just 1515 with TB in 11,000 culled from 2000 sq.km


I know it seems a shame to you that the NFU cannot cull everything except livestock but the general public inc politicians and scientists realise that a badger cull is simply a smokescreen for a problem that originates in cattle.

Blake2pi

Well that clearly isn't going to happen. Why should farmers give up compensation part (if not largely) paid for by the sale of their own cattle to make themselves much poorer and likely run themselves out of business for a disease out of control thanks to politicians meddling who've tied farmers hands? I like many want to see a more stable farming sector but, the idea that you can keep lumbering more and more costs onto them whilst forcing them to pay the extortionate rates for vaccination (which I assume you're alluding too) is going to create a viable farming community isn't going to work.

“Culling of the badges in Ireland did not end Bovine TB.” -.... but, it's done hell of a lot in controlling it.

“Not culling is North Pembrokeshire in the past two year HAS reduced the incidence of the disease.” - It's has similarly decreased in other parts of GB over the last two years. In the long term though (which is the only way you can really look at controlling this disease) TB in Ireland has decreased considerably whereas TB in GB has increased considerably.

“But the more distance between the Welsh Government and the farmers unions the better. “ - Why?

patrick

http://www.badgersandtb.com/more_detailed.html

Check out the ' more detailed summary' part of this link to demonstrate the absurdity of a cull.

There is a growing scientific view (backed up by facts) that cows are passing on TB to badgers, deer etc , not the other way round.

The comments to this entry are closed.