On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 15:57:19 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
You don't seem to care what WTO things anyway Take those idle
acres and put them to something you need.

Sorry, we can't do it if WTO says it is wrong. Commitments, you know.

You don't seem to give a damn about living up WTO rulings on beef in for a
penny in for a pound.

Which WTO ruling are you thinking of?

"David G. Bell" wrote in message
.. .
On Saturday, in article


Well, I just have to grease the left ankle torsion actuator bushes on
this Gundam, stuff the blonde wig in the tumble drier, and check the
cockpit fan....

the only military system ever designed so that the pilot in his cockpit
could smile at his girl in the control tower as he took off.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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






--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.

"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?

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.

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.

Gordon

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 15:57:19 -0600, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
You don't seem to care what WTO things anyway Take those idle
acres and put them to something you need.

Sorry, we can't do it if WTO says it is wrong. Commitments, you know.

You don't seem to give a damn about living up WTO rulings on beef in for
a
penny in for a pound.

Which WTO ruling are you thinking of?

The one on US beef.

Gordon

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.

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.

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.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

Michael Percy wrote in message
news
On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 22:07:26 +0000, David P wrote:
As things are getting a bit boring in here, perhaps we could extend
this discussion to include land tenure? I happen to know that
Torsten
has strongly held, if slightly wacky, views on the subject.

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 Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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


Mike

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
As things are getting a bit boring in here, perhaps we could extend this
discussion to include land tenure?

No, first things first, Tim.
First we must out what it is David P has misunderstood.

Ever the agile argufier:-)

regards



--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 19:44:39 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 22:14:20 -0000, David P
wrote:
you were impling that the people who were still
farming were short-sighted.

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


Shame. I thought you might take the time to explain yourself.

Try with a proper question.


It *was* a proper question. The fact that you chose not to respond to it
as such says much to me.
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

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


Shame. I thought you might take the time to explain yourself.

As things are getting a bit boring in here, perhaps we could extend this
discussion to include land tenure?

No, first things first, Tim.
First we must out what it is David P has misunderstood.

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

In article ,
Gordon Couger wrote:
snip

Your governments are looking for was to produce less crops while paying
farmers more subsidy and importing more food. Most 3 graders can find the
flaw in that. If you are gong to pay the farmer get something you can use
out of him. You don't seem to care what WTO things anyway Take those idle
acres and put them to something you need.



It doesn't make any difference
what it cost you are going to pat the farmer one way or another.

I think the UK govt is trying to avoid doing that.

Maybe you should close him down

It's managing to do that.

and put is stuff on display

Yes. That's happening in many places. So long as it's not very modern ie
should be nostalgic.

and pay him a
curator

The number of farmers taking up the scheme will show whether they are
offering an acceptable amount. So far, AIUI, it's just equivalent to
"income forgone" - no explicit salary. What's "income forgone" in a farm
making a loss?

and by all you food from the low bidder.

One of our Govt Ministers, Lord Whitty, is already advocating that.
Cheers
Jane

Gordon

--

Jane G : : S Devon

"David G. Bell" wrote in message
.. .
On Saturday, in article
"Jim Webster" wrote:

"David G. Bell" wrote in message
.. .
On Saturday, in article


Well, I just have to grease the left ankle torsion actuator bushes
on
this Gundam, stuff the blonde wig in the tumble drier, and check
the
cockpit fan....

the only military system ever designed so that the pilot in his
cockpit
could smile at his girl in the control tower as he took off.

grump YOU always get the girl in the control tower... /grump

Though maybe Bubblegun Crisis would be more appropriate to farming....

Remember John Goomer and the beefburger?

I must admit that the whole BSE thing is starting to look as if it does
have all the makings of a classic bubblegum crisis.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 10:02:38 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
As things are getting a bit boring in here, perhaps we could extend this
discussion to include land tenure?

No, first things first, Tim.
First we must out what it is David P has misunderstood.

Ever the agile argufier:-)

I'm just a sailor of the floe.

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