• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Farmers need permission to save their crops!

#1
To allow farmers to save their crops in wet weather they need gubmint permission to deploy heavy machinery otherwise they could be prosecuted under european rules.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4719724.ece

Me, I would just get the machines in and bugger the consequences. So who will turn the Nelson eye in The UK in this day and age? The local copper, my neighbours, the rural magistrate? How is it that the government can't just let the farmers get on with it like in other countries in europe and then back them up. No, permission must be granted first, I just can't get that.

Also it's another example of how one rule just can't fit the diversity of Europe and all the possible conditions. The ruination of the little man doesn't matter as long as we have conformity in the one state that is Europe.

Surely our EMPs should be made to fight rules like this instead of living on a fat wage to vote away our freedoms and make o so important decisions on the future of the mink farms.

Time to form our own european party for the next elections?
 
#2
The extract below details the current situation. What I struggle to comprehend is the assumption by Govt that it is their role to protect the quality of soil on private property. If a farmer wishes to render his land barren then that is his choice, and his alone.

"European Union rules ban farmers from using combine harvesters on wet land to protect soil quality. Those who flout the ban can be prosecuted. "
 
#4
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
The extract below details the current situation. What I struggle to comprehend is the assumption by Govt that it is their role to protect the quality of soil on private property. If a farmer wishes to render his land barren then that is his choice, and his alone.

"European Union rules ban farmers from using combine harvesters on wet land to protect soil quality. Those who flout the ban can be prosecuted. "
Bollock's I have farmer's in my family and they have never heard of this, who is going or indeed able to enforce that sort of rule?....you'd have people yomping all over every country in the EU looking for damp farm land...we can barly stop Italian farmer's from defrauding on their olive crop's and we know exactly when and where that happenes
 
#5
petergriffen said:
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
The extract below details the current situation. What I struggle to comprehend is the assumption by Govt that it is their role to protect the quality of soil on private property. If a farmer wishes to render his land barren then that is his choice, and his alone.

"European Union rules ban farmers from using combine harvesters on wet land to protect soil quality. Those who flout the ban can be prosecuted. "
Bollock's I have farmer's in my family and they have never heard of this, who is going or indeed able to enforce that sort of rule?....you'd have people yomping all over every country in the EU looking for damp farm land...we can barly stop Italian farmer's from defrauding on their olive crop's and we know exactly when and where that happenes
Just because it sounds utterly bonkers and most people have never heard of it does not mean such rules do not exist.

Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) standards mean that Farmers are required to maintain soils, habitats and landscape and can be inspected and protecting soil structures from damage is one of the conditions.

But this is nothing new: was dealt with following the floods last year by suspending these stupid rules that nobody complies with (because you can plough out ruts and use a subsoil pan breaker plough to deal with any soil compaction later)

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070725a.htm
 
#6
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
The extract below details the current situation. What I struggle to comprehend is the assumption by Govt that it is their role to protect the quality of soil on private property. If a farmer wishes to render his land barren then that is his choice, and his alone.

"European Union rules ban farmers from using combine harvesters on wet land to protect soil quality. Those who flout the ban can be prosecuted. "
I'll remind you of that when the shops are bare. We're an island, we're reliant on food imports and food security is going to be a big issue of the next few decades.

Why don't we protect the right of the armaments industry to run their factories into the ground, while we're at it?
 
#7
smartascarrots said:
I'll remind you of that when the shops are bare. We're an island, we're reliant on food imports and food security is going to be a big issue of the next few decades.
Not to worry mate, we've got a Navy...oh!
 
#8
Mr_Deputy said:
Many farmers are late in with their crops this year and given the wet weather this could be the worst crop in a generation. I stress COULD be. Given that we've had some bad ones recently that is saying something.
I may or may not have done my bit by letting down all the tyres of a bunch of wankers making crop circles near Barbury Castle a few weeks ago...
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
If we want to protect our ability to grow crops into the next century, then we have to look after the soil today.

That means taking measures NOW to stop soil erosion. Despite it being widely known that hedgerows protect the topsoil of farmland by acting as a windbreak, farmers today are getting rid of them so that they can have HUGE profitable fields for their big machines to operate in. Screw the wildlife that survives in the hedgerows, screw the fact that over many years, the top-soil will dry and blow away in hot summers due to no windbreaks being there, hey, and while they're at it, nuts to what damage those ruts will cause long term with those ever-heavier machines travelling over the soil.

Of course, those bare-arrsed fields used to be covered it thick forests, teeming with all manner of wildlife, but the farmer's and punter's needs are more important.

Just like fishing - there is a balance to be achieved. If you overdo it now, and don't take precautions, there'll be fcuk-all for future generations.

Don't get me wrong; I appreciate that there are years of bad harvests, and that we must sympathise with farmers when this happens (and pay more for our food of course), and we have to keep paying extra to subsidise farmers as we've been doing for many years - BUT, let's try and keep our eyes on the longer term, because once the soil is gone, once the fish are gone (that's just another example of short term greed wiping out future harvests), once the wildlife is gone, it's fcuking hard to get it back.

One system might cost farmers and the public millions over the years, but the loss of the soil, the wildlife, or even fish for that matter - these things are priceless and may not be recovered.
 
#10
smartascarrots said:
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
The extract below details the current situation. What I struggle to comprehend is the assumption by Govt that it is their role to protect the quality of soil on private property. If a farmer wishes to render his land barren then that is his choice, and his alone.

"European Union rules ban farmers from using combine harvesters on wet land to protect soil quality. Those who flout the ban can be prosecuted. "
I'll remind you of that when the shops are bare. We're an island, we're reliant on food imports and food security is going to be a big issue of the next few decades.

Why don't we protect the right of the armaments industry to run their factories into the ground, while we're at it?

Because as you well know that goes against the priciple of market forces...


Good grief man your be asking for the government to be there to protect the nation next
 
#11
Whilst not being a fan of the EU, there is no such thing as EU rules, only directives that are then used as a basis for UK law. I'm not familiar with this particular beauty being discussed. However, I have had cause in the past to compare EU directives with the resultant UK law (eg meat slaughter) and they are chalk and cheese. The EU directive on slaughter was a well rounded document with plenty of loopholes to allow for local tradition and smaller or remote operations. Guess what? In the UK law, absolutely no loopholes.

Who do we blame here? Common sense EU directives or sloppy, draconian interpretation and implementation by the UK legislative?
 
#12
I thought Margaret Thatcher graduated in Chemistry, not Soil Science?

Or is she pretty handy with a chisel plough?
 
#15
A friend of mine quoted on television, ' I used to be a full time farmer and a part time book keeper, now I'm a full time book keeper and a part time farmer'.

From my family:

' We are doing nothing with the wool this time because we can only get 7p a kilo. We told DEFRA we would burn it instead - DEFRA told us they would prosecute us. So it's under those sheets and the boys won't come and pick it up anyway because of the cost of the diesel. We can't even give it away'
 
#16
Why? Why? Why?

Why do we have to adhere slavishly to every diktat and order issued by the faceless, anonymous, unelected, unaccountable apparatchiks of the European Soviet Union? We cannot even vote these ghouls out of office!

The French do not obey; the Italians do not; the Spanish do not, and most of the former Warsaw Pact countries do not even read them!

Are these functionaries paid by the fatuous edicts that they produce?

Why are we, Subjects of Her Majesty, afflicted so?

The hapless and hopelessly inept 'Mr. Bean', in a desperate attempt to garner a vote or two, planned to give some money recently to 'the needy' to help pay for their energy (gas, coal and electric) bills. The Supreme Praesidium of the European Soviet Union told him not to - he obeyed!

'He obeyed' - is it possible that I am alive following my BOTH my grandfathers' ultimate sacrifice and the destruction of my father's health and life span; seeing the final victory handed over?

Are we now so gutless and so ruined by 'new labour' , and the remnants of the remembrance of 'Traitor' Heath, that we just give in?

When will this country rise up and say: No! no! no! - when?

We had a Leader once, and I mean Leader, who said just that. She shut the European Sh*tes up for a few years, until she was betrayed.

Thereafter the commissars got bold again. The 'grinning spiv' said 'yes' to everything, and probably added:

"Please make me president, I wannabe president and my lovely wife wants to be first lady, and have the Queen of 'England' curtsey to her. Oh! please, pretty please" - or words to that effect.
 
#17
It is a really bad idea to use heavy machinery in the long term. Doing that makes the soil infertile eventually. In the short term it is financially advantageous to maximise food production. Following market forces here will lead to having sod all in the future. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_compaction

Past civilisations that have overused natural resources disappeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed

WIKI said:
Diamond lists eight factors which have historically contributed to the collapse of past societies:

Deforestation and habitat destruction
Soil problems (erosion, salinization, and soil fertility losses)
Water management problems
Overhunting
Overfishing
Effects of introduced species on native species
Population growth
Increased per-capita impact of people
Further, he says four new factors may contribute to the weakening and collapse of present and future societies:

Human-caused climate change
Buildup of toxins in the environment
Energy shortages
Full human utilization of the Earth’s photosynthetic capacity
Now I do sympathise with the farmers affected but isn't there a better way to help than allow environmental damage? Compensation perhaps?

I guess the rights and wrongs of all this depends on how you think about land ownership. If you believe that we totally own the land then farmers should be allowed to destroy what they own. If you believe that land owners should hold it in trust for future generations, then they should not have that right.

The Earth is about 4-5 billion years old. Humanity something over 1 million. We live for about 70 years as individuals. That makes me more prone towards conservation than immediate commercial interest.
 
#18
Having spent large sums of money to get a crop this far to leave it the field to rot is not an option. Every tonne harvested will help to reduce the financial loss. Soil damage can be rectified over a period of time, with the correct equipment and is not terminal or permanently damaging to the soil. Subject to soil type.

With regards to hedges. Government is paying to establish hedges which previous governments paid to remove, which previous governments had paid and legislated to establish. It just depends on the emphasis of the incumbent government.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#19
I bought 1/2 ton of wheat at £70 two weeks ago when the sun was shining, I need another 1/2 ton, I dread to think what the cost will be.
Damn expensive birds this year.
 
#20
Victorian_Major said:
Mr_Deputy said:
Many farmers are late in with their crops this year and given the wet weather this could be the worst crop in a generation. I stress COULD be. Given that we've had some bad ones recently that is saying something.
I may or may not have done my bit by letting down all the tyres of a bunch of wankers making crop circles near Barbury Castle a few weeks ago...
Aliens have tyres?

I thought they had spaceships....

Litotes
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top