- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
It'll take a long time to get there by tractorMight have to school up my young tractor-driver and book a ticket!
"Improving Our Lot" - Planned Holistic Grazing, for starters..
- Thread starter Kiwi Pete
- Start date
Sorry Kp I probably shouldn't of used the word argument, my point probably a better way of saying it & wasn't directed at you but at the piece & surely posted to discuss.
Constructed criticism is important & if I were to criticise myself it would be to criticise in a more positive manner so I do fully apologise if it came across wrong & please put the piece back in full.
- Location
- NSW, Newstralya
here is as good a place as anywhere . . .
Its odd what different people see in TFF, I see a lot of more not better
some one doing so many 100 of this and so many 100's of that, or employing this many people and they are desperate for the BPS payment to turn up
awkward
Member
- Location
- kerry ireland
Disappointed that he seems to not value livestock but he has a great message
Save the Date! - Resource Consulting Services
Save the Date! - Resource Consulting Serviceswww.rcsaustralia.com.au
RCS 2020 International Conference
July 18 and 19, 2020
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Join us to hear some of the best minds in the world!
Once every decade, RCS hosts a ground-breaking conference to celebrate another 10 years of the import of the Grazing for Profit™ School into Australia.
In July 2020, we celebrate 30 years.
To mark the occasion, we have secured some of the planet’s most outstanding minds, who will show us a glimpse into the future at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre for our event, themed ‘Convergence: Agriculture, human and planetary health’.
We are beyond excited to announce that the amazing Dr Zach Bush, one of the most compelling medical minds on the face of the earth, will keynote our event! Dr Bush is one of the few medicos to fully understand the links between soil health and human health.
Dr Bush works tirelessly to promote farmers regenerating their landscapes to produce healthy food for a healthy planet. If you have not yet heard of Dr Bush, please watch or listen to this interview to understand what a coup it is to have him visit us in Australia for the first time.
Watch or listen to the interview here
Watch or listen to the interview here
Watch or listen to the interview here
Naturally, he will not be the only speaker. Many others will be travelling from around Australia and the globe. More cutting-edge and thought-provoking speakers will be announced in due course.
Please put this date in your diary, and sign up through the button below to be kept up to date with announcements and ticket releases. We hope you can join us to celebrate all that we, as a community, have achieved.
Terry.
Get updates on the RCS 2020 International Conference
RushesToo
Member
- Location
- Fingringhoe
here is as good a place as anywhere . . .
Journalist: What do you think of Western civilization?
Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
That's the odd "in-betweeny" stage neatly described.
If you run a low profit per unit operation then you need to sell a lot of units.
My generalisation here is that many operators on TFF have enough kit and caboodle to run an operation 15 times bigger than they actually run, which effectively means the overhead cost per unit sold is 15 times bigger than ideal?
Small scale really means you need to be as close as possible to being self-sufficient for energy and resources, or co-operative in your efforts.
What I see instead is a heap of division, a heap of competition between individual producers, a bit of an arms-race, a bit of "keeping up appearances".
This is why the big get bigger, often they are following a model of continual expansion because they rely on debt, have low margin per unit etc - sort of the way our national economies work, a lot of poor performance.
The key is recognising the advantages of having a smaller business - more attention per unit sold, more time to work on the business (like your networking with the folk who buy your bulls, to produce what they want to buy) and in a grass-farming context, more time with the cattle in environment, so you can do things better.
I remember your thread "what do you need to be a farmer" quite well, did you ever get an answer?
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
All good Treg
my addition detracted rather than added to the jist of the article, ie what really governs cost of production.Your comment regarding the depreciation is right on the money - I think that one area many of us can sharpen up on is "insurances" by way of our input spend?
Insurance (I guess a lot of farm spending fits this) doesn't necessarily "give xxxx return" as is often part of the marketing pitch - and it pays to examine minutely what we're doing with our money.
There were an awful lot of cows being milked for nothing, where I came from; roughly 110 cows to purchase grain, 200 to pay for a labour unit, another 70 to pay for fertiliser and a farm consultant, and another 40 on "insurances" of various kinds
So, why would you run twice as many cows just to produce milk, my vision was to cut the herd back to the best cows, run on and maybe finish better calves, and focus on the core drivers of the business.
The business owner had a much different picture in his own mind, I really couldn't reconcile the differences (although they were lovely people) it seemed like he was determined to hang onto the treadmill of doing more and more
Taking this back to your point, he could have chosen to work on his depreciation via reducing the herd age when cow price was up relative to milk price, and worked on the output when the price cycles reverse - this would have strengthened his position IMO
My view of his strategy is that he was weakening his position by milking too many poor cows at the wrong time - maybe he didn't know where to look
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
Meeting Registration: Tall Grass Grazing: Transitioning Off of Nitrogen Fertilizer | AnyMeeting - Online Meetings, Video Conferencing and Webinar Service
Meeting Registration: Tall Grass Grazing: Transitioning Off of Nitrogen Fertilizer - Web Conferencing, Video Conferencing and Webinar Service. Produce your own high quality online meetings and webinars, with registration service, polling, surveys and more. Get started for free!
www.anymeeting.com
This may be of interest to some of you, link to register for the webinar ^^^^
I don't think so
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
The reality is, all wee really need is a bit of water and maybe a bit of sunshine... and a market
The rest of it is "nice to have" but not much else is really essential; I know that very few desire to return to "dog and stick" judging by comments but is it going to beat what they do now for profit per quid in the game?
It's extremely likely that it can.
By far the biggest return is on what we get for free - sky above us
Must admit my mother is a number person , chickens / cows they had to be certain size flock / herd because that's what other people said would pay??? Wasn't worried about production just the number of animals.All good Treg
Your comment regarding the depreciation is right on the money - I think that one area many of us can sharpen up on is "insurances" by way of our input spend?
Insurance (I guess a lot of farm spending fits this) doesn't necessarily "give xxxx return" as is often part of the marketing pitch - and it pays to examine minutely what we're doing with our money.
There were an awful lot of cows being milked for nothing, where I came from; roughly 110 cows to purchase grain, 200 to pay for a labour unit, another 70 to pay for fertiliser and a farm consultant, and another 40 on "insurances" of various kinds
So, why would you run twice as many cows just to produce milk, my vision was to cut the herd back to the best cows, run on and maybe finish better calves, and focus on the core drivers of the business.
The business owner had a much different picture in his own mind, I really couldn't reconcile the differences (although they were lovely people) it seemed like he was determined to hang onto the treadmill of doing more and more
Taking this back to your point, he could have chosen to work on his depreciation via reducing the herd age when cow price was up relative to milk price, and worked on the output when the price cycles reverse - this would have strengthened his position IMO
My view of his strategy is that he was weakening his position by milking too many poor cows at the wrong time - maybe he didn't know where to look
I guess we all focus on something, maybe without realizing ourselves what it is.
not sure if a lot of it is even nice to have any more, the older I get the more it seems like a pain in the arse, the cattle are fine though
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
If every NZ dairy operation took that approach then the methane target would be met early at the same time as profitability rose! The fall in output volume might even give the government slight pause for thought.All good Treg
Your comment regarding the depreciation is right on the money - I think that one area many of us can sharpen up on is "insurances" by way of our input spend?
Insurance (I guess a lot of farm spending fits this) doesn't necessarily "give xxxx return" as is often part of the marketing pitch - and it pays to examine minutely what we're doing with our money.
There were an awful lot of cows being milked for nothing, where I came from; roughly 110 cows to purchase grain, 200 to pay for a labour unit, another 70 to pay for fertiliser and a farm consultant, and another 40 on "insurances" of various kinds
So, why would you run twice as many cows just to produce milk, my vision was to cut the herd back to the best cows, run on and maybe finish better calves, and focus on the core drivers of the business.
The business owner had a much different picture in his own mind, I really couldn't reconcile the differences (although they were lovely people) it seemed like he was determined to hang onto the treadmill of doing more and more
Taking this back to your point, he could have chosen to work on his depreciation via reducing the herd age when cow price was up relative to milk price, and worked on the output when the price cycles reverse - this would have strengthened his position IMO
My view of his strategy is that he was weakening his position by milking too many poor cows at the wrong time - maybe he didn't know where to look
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
Just hooked the girls out of the mob, so they can calve in peace, and so the little ones don't get raped by the big bulls.
Nice having such friendly heifers, it will help us (hopefully) foster on a few extras without too much stress.
The wee Limmy x is maybe a little small to easily calve? Time will tell, I guess. She does have quite a roomy 'looking' pelvis but I have my doubts about an unassisted birth, the other girls stand a few inches taller and look much better than the dairy heifers we had here, both in condition and stature.
It'll be an interesting experiment, anyway; they are probably quite a bit smaller than their genetic potential due to being on a tight diet as a calf, weaned small, and last summer's dry possibly held them up too.
ShooTa
Member
- Location
- Denbighshire - In the vale of Clwyd!
just for a giggle.
hope everyones well.
talking animal numbers - theres alot of that being thrown this way too,.. i dislike it however i guess you do need enough to cover the costs - its one of the reasons im hoping to move into other animals to diversify and make use of non-field spaces on our property and stack enterprises.
I remember talking to a farmer years ago & he said he knew his limit was 60 dairy cows, being in my mid 20s didn't really understand it but as I've got older I realised what he meant, we all have different aspirations & limits . Understanding your limits & what you can cope with in life is a huge bonus, some never do & carry on chasing rainbows (even that works for some ).
I've invested heavily in the farm the last few years , looking forwards to the next 5yrs the money will be invested off farm .
A valuable lesson I learnt on a management course...don't invest everything in one business, even if it's just £50- 100 a month invested in shares it will build up a reserve & give you options.
- Location
- NSW, Newstralya
In The Saturday Paper today – it's paywalled so I've pasted the text here.
The need for sustainable farming
Matthew Evans, Saturday Paper, 05/10/2019
“Don’t eat beef,” screamed the headlines when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report on climate change and land. At least that’s what most of the media suggested.
A damning report, it quickly did the rounds. The 1400 pages – compiled by 107 scholars from 52 nations – mark the best attempt yet to predict the impacts of our actions on land. It covers wetlands, tundra, deforestation, agriculture, urban sprawl and more. But as tends to happen, the message was simplified beyond recognition. And, as usual, cattle ended up as the press’s punching bag with the claims that beef and dairy are to blame.
As I looked outside my window, though, and watched my Jersey cow Myrtle graze on grass, I did wonder what the report actually said. Could it be that by growing grass, a renewable resource that captures carbon, getting my cow to eat that grass (something I can’t digest) and turn it into nutritionally dense milk (which I can digest), I was contributing more than my share to the climate collapse?
My cow doesn’t dig up coal. My cow doesn’t drill for oil. And unless she’s doing things very sneakily, I don’t think my cow is fracking either. How could a cow, using a renewable resource as her fodder, be compared to digging up and releasing carbon that has been stored underground for 300 million years, as burning coal, oil and natural gas all do?
So, I went not to the 10-second news grabs or lazy headlines but to the IPCC report itself, and it’s no easy reading. Criticisms are couched, references extensive. What it did not say was that meat is the only culprit. In fact, it says that farming – the way we’ve done it for the past 100 years in particular – is unsustainable. It also points out, awkwardly, that we waste a third of the food we grow. Think about that for a moment. If global food waste were a country, it would be the third-highest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, after the United States and China.
Perhaps harder to fix is farming itself. And after I went on ABC’s The Drum to discuss the report, I was summarily dropped from speaking at a farmers’ forum. What’s clear is that the message isn’t getting through to those who can make a difference – the farmers themselves. Criticising a farmer, it seems, is akin to criticising a parent.
TURNS OUT, ALL LIVESTOCK FARMERS AREN’T DEVILS … THE MOST SUSTAINABLE FARMING SYSTEMS COME UP WITH AN ECOLOGICAL MODEL, OFTEN INCLUDING ANIMALS, THAT SUITS THEIR GEOGRAPHY.
If they are honest, farmers know the climate is changing. They notice drier years, tougher years, warmer temperatures and more evaporation of the rain that does fall. Despite knowing things are shifting, a sizeable number of farmers still question human impacts on climate.
I admire farmers. I think the alchemy of producing food using sunlight, air, soil and water should be celebrated. But I’d rather get my science from a scientist.
And what the science says that should interest farmers most is that the magic bit of earth that does all of the growing, the topsoil, is quickly diminishing.
There’s three times more carbon, even today, in the top metre of the world’s soil than there is in the atmosphere – stored in decaying plants and humus, as well as microbes, such as bacteria and fungi. Cut down trees and you deplete soil. And plough the earth? You ruin soil more than 100 times faster than new topsoil can be created, according to the IPCC. Even if you don’t till the earth when growing crops, you ruin it about 20 times faster than it can be replaced. And what is modern farming all about? Growing grains, for humans and livestock, and annual crops such as vegetables.
At least a quarter of the increased carbon in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has been released from soil. That’s a lot of carbon if you think about how much coal, oil and gas we’ve churned through. According to the IPCC, “Cropland soils have lost 20-60 per cent of their organic carbon content.”
In simple terms, we’re in the process of buggering up the priceless bit of earth, the part that feeds us. Australian farmland soil carbon has dropped to only a quarter of its original since white settlement. In many places, a lot more.
So, what does the IPCC report on land actually say?
It says we should stop cutting down trees. We need to plant more trees. It says farming, where monoculture crops and pesticide use are rampant, is ruining the land. It says, and this is the key, that we can feed the world, and store carbon, by being more clever about the way we use the land we have.
It says there are sustainable animal production systems, but industrial livestock production isn’t one. That eating local and seasonal is, in many cases, a valuable environmental choice – not just a trendy thing for rich urbanites carrying wicker baskets. The carbon footprint for airfreighted food is 100 times greater than if it were transported by boat. And that’s fossil fuel carbon, not cow burps.
In fact, when you look at ways to store carbon, Australian agriculture has a world first: the only farmer to get paid by the government after increasing the amount of carbon in his soil.
Niels Olsen, a Gippsland cattle farmer – that’s right, a beef producer – has come up with a system of sowing crops including oats, radish and peas into pasture, then grazing the area with livestock in a way that increases his productivity per acre. This method also stores carbon, in a time frame previously thought unimaginable.
Testing shows carbon in Olsen’s soil rose from about 3 per cent to 10.7 per cent in just five years. Using an ingenious machine he’s invented – a sort of combined slasher, seeder and hoe – he has increased his productivity. This is because there’s more carbon and higher fungal activity in his soil, and these fundamental changes allow plants to grow more efficiently.
It’s a complex process, but essentially there’s more phosphorus, nitrogen, and even more water available – partly because Olsen’s worm and microbe populations are now six times bigger than they were. Carbon storage on the farm has been independently verified and attracted carbon credits through the federal government’s Emissions Reduction Fund.
Farmers would be hard pressed to access the system themselves, though, with all the methodology and red tape. It was Matthew Warnken from AgriProve, a company set up to help farmers improve soil and trade in carbon credits, who navigated the complex carbon accounting and verification for Olsen. “A lot of Australian land is in a poor state of repair,” Warnken admits. “But that means there’s just so much potential.”
Is Olsen’s property a one-off?
“We’ve got 70 farmers signed up looking to do the same thing,” Warnken says. “We’re only really scratching the surface.” Farmers can plant trees to get carbon credits, but this isn’t meaningful work for many, and it doesn’t feed the world. Warnken’s mission is to make carbon accounting in farmland standard practice. To find out whether all farms are improving, or depleting, the land we rely on.
Turns out, all livestock farmers aren’t devils. And vegetable and grain growers aren’t automatically saviours of our soils.
The most sustainable farming systems come up with an ecological model, often including animals, that suits their geography. Diversity is key. According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, 70 per cent of the world’s food is grown by smallholders on 10 hectares or fewer. Many of these are mixed farms, where land not suitable for crops is used for livestock, and things that humans can’t, don’t or won’t eat is fed to animals.
The IPCC report recognises meat as a nutrient-dense food. It does, however, recommend against energy-intensive animal agriculture, and suggests some people, in richer countries, could eat less meat.
The thing is that farmers have been – mostly inadvertently – creating a problem. Yet they can also be part of the solution. Through proper leadership, good science, enforceable legislation on land clearing – yes, you, Queensland and New South Wales state governments – and local action, we can make a change. Eating less animal products might make sense for some, depending on their location, belief system, genetic make-up and access to truly sustainable meat. But it’s not livestock that is the problem; it’s humans and the way we farm all things.
It’s easy to blurt “don’t eat meat” when a report such as this comes out. But saying farming is screwed and we need to fix it leaves individuals feeling needlessly anxious about eating at all. A lack of leadership in the climate change space means everybody wants to be personally empowered. Buying less stuff is a great start. Using less fuel, flying less, driving less, burning less gas, these are real ways to have an impact.
Avoiding energy-intensive grain-fed animals is where the report lands on eating meat. If you can, buy local, seasonal, unprocessed ingredients from integrated, ecological farmers. But when it comes to food, the biggest change has to come from farmers themselves
The need for sustainable farming
Matthew Evans, Saturday Paper, 05/10/2019
“Don’t eat beef,” screamed the headlines when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report on climate change and land. At least that’s what most of the media suggested.
A damning report, it quickly did the rounds. The 1400 pages – compiled by 107 scholars from 52 nations – mark the best attempt yet to predict the impacts of our actions on land. It covers wetlands, tundra, deforestation, agriculture, urban sprawl and more. But as tends to happen, the message was simplified beyond recognition. And, as usual, cattle ended up as the press’s punching bag with the claims that beef and dairy are to blame.
As I looked outside my window, though, and watched my Jersey cow Myrtle graze on grass, I did wonder what the report actually said. Could it be that by growing grass, a renewable resource that captures carbon, getting my cow to eat that grass (something I can’t digest) and turn it into nutritionally dense milk (which I can digest), I was contributing more than my share to the climate collapse?
My cow doesn’t dig up coal. My cow doesn’t drill for oil. And unless she’s doing things very sneakily, I don’t think my cow is fracking either. How could a cow, using a renewable resource as her fodder, be compared to digging up and releasing carbon that has been stored underground for 300 million years, as burning coal, oil and natural gas all do?
So, I went not to the 10-second news grabs or lazy headlines but to the IPCC report itself, and it’s no easy reading. Criticisms are couched, references extensive. What it did not say was that meat is the only culprit. In fact, it says that farming – the way we’ve done it for the past 100 years in particular – is unsustainable. It also points out, awkwardly, that we waste a third of the food we grow. Think about that for a moment. If global food waste were a country, it would be the third-highest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, after the United States and China.
Perhaps harder to fix is farming itself. And after I went on ABC’s The Drum to discuss the report, I was summarily dropped from speaking at a farmers’ forum. What’s clear is that the message isn’t getting through to those who can make a difference – the farmers themselves. Criticising a farmer, it seems, is akin to criticising a parent.
TURNS OUT, ALL LIVESTOCK FARMERS AREN’T DEVILS … THE MOST SUSTAINABLE FARMING SYSTEMS COME UP WITH AN ECOLOGICAL MODEL, OFTEN INCLUDING ANIMALS, THAT SUITS THEIR GEOGRAPHY.
If they are honest, farmers know the climate is changing. They notice drier years, tougher years, warmer temperatures and more evaporation of the rain that does fall. Despite knowing things are shifting, a sizeable number of farmers still question human impacts on climate.
I admire farmers. I think the alchemy of producing food using sunlight, air, soil and water should be celebrated. But I’d rather get my science from a scientist.
And what the science says that should interest farmers most is that the magic bit of earth that does all of the growing, the topsoil, is quickly diminishing.
There’s three times more carbon, even today, in the top metre of the world’s soil than there is in the atmosphere – stored in decaying plants and humus, as well as microbes, such as bacteria and fungi. Cut down trees and you deplete soil. And plough the earth? You ruin soil more than 100 times faster than new topsoil can be created, according to the IPCC. Even if you don’t till the earth when growing crops, you ruin it about 20 times faster than it can be replaced. And what is modern farming all about? Growing grains, for humans and livestock, and annual crops such as vegetables.
At least a quarter of the increased carbon in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has been released from soil. That’s a lot of carbon if you think about how much coal, oil and gas we’ve churned through. According to the IPCC, “Cropland soils have lost 20-60 per cent of their organic carbon content.”
In simple terms, we’re in the process of buggering up the priceless bit of earth, the part that feeds us. Australian farmland soil carbon has dropped to only a quarter of its original since white settlement. In many places, a lot more.
So, what does the IPCC report on land actually say?
It says we should stop cutting down trees. We need to plant more trees. It says farming, where monoculture crops and pesticide use are rampant, is ruining the land. It says, and this is the key, that we can feed the world, and store carbon, by being more clever about the way we use the land we have.
It says there are sustainable animal production systems, but industrial livestock production isn’t one. That eating local and seasonal is, in many cases, a valuable environmental choice – not just a trendy thing for rich urbanites carrying wicker baskets. The carbon footprint for airfreighted food is 100 times greater than if it were transported by boat. And that’s fossil fuel carbon, not cow burps.
In fact, when you look at ways to store carbon, Australian agriculture has a world first: the only farmer to get paid by the government after increasing the amount of carbon in his soil.
Niels Olsen, a Gippsland cattle farmer – that’s right, a beef producer – has come up with a system of sowing crops including oats, radish and peas into pasture, then grazing the area with livestock in a way that increases his productivity per acre. This method also stores carbon, in a time frame previously thought unimaginable.
Testing shows carbon in Olsen’s soil rose from about 3 per cent to 10.7 per cent in just five years. Using an ingenious machine he’s invented – a sort of combined slasher, seeder and hoe – he has increased his productivity. This is because there’s more carbon and higher fungal activity in his soil, and these fundamental changes allow plants to grow more efficiently.
It’s a complex process, but essentially there’s more phosphorus, nitrogen, and even more water available – partly because Olsen’s worm and microbe populations are now six times bigger than they were. Carbon storage on the farm has been independently verified and attracted carbon credits through the federal government’s Emissions Reduction Fund.
Farmers would be hard pressed to access the system themselves, though, with all the methodology and red tape. It was Matthew Warnken from AgriProve, a company set up to help farmers improve soil and trade in carbon credits, who navigated the complex carbon accounting and verification for Olsen. “A lot of Australian land is in a poor state of repair,” Warnken admits. “But that means there’s just so much potential.”
Is Olsen’s property a one-off?
“We’ve got 70 farmers signed up looking to do the same thing,” Warnken says. “We’re only really scratching the surface.” Farmers can plant trees to get carbon credits, but this isn’t meaningful work for many, and it doesn’t feed the world. Warnken’s mission is to make carbon accounting in farmland standard practice. To find out whether all farms are improving, or depleting, the land we rely on.
Turns out, all livestock farmers aren’t devils. And vegetable and grain growers aren’t automatically saviours of our soils.
The most sustainable farming systems come up with an ecological model, often including animals, that suits their geography. Diversity is key. According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, 70 per cent of the world’s food is grown by smallholders on 10 hectares or fewer. Many of these are mixed farms, where land not suitable for crops is used for livestock, and things that humans can’t, don’t or won’t eat is fed to animals.
The IPCC report recognises meat as a nutrient-dense food. It does, however, recommend against energy-intensive animal agriculture, and suggests some people, in richer countries, could eat less meat.
The thing is that farmers have been – mostly inadvertently – creating a problem. Yet they can also be part of the solution. Through proper leadership, good science, enforceable legislation on land clearing – yes, you, Queensland and New South Wales state governments – and local action, we can make a change. Eating less animal products might make sense for some, depending on their location, belief system, genetic make-up and access to truly sustainable meat. But it’s not livestock that is the problem; it’s humans and the way we farm all things.
It’s easy to blurt “don’t eat meat” when a report such as this comes out. But saying farming is screwed and we need to fix it leaves individuals feeling needlessly anxious about eating at all. A lack of leadership in the climate change space means everybody wants to be personally empowered. Buying less stuff is a great start. Using less fuel, flying less, driving less, burning less gas, these are real ways to have an impact.
Avoiding energy-intensive grain-fed animals is where the report lands on eating meat. If you can, buy local, seasonal, unprocessed ingredients from integrated, ecological farmers. But when it comes to food, the biggest change has to come from farmers themselves
Good piece Roy & he talks a lot of sense.
There are a lot of us on a journey & hopefully going in the right direction but unfortunately there is still a large amount of farmers farming in a very negative way for both the environment & our image.
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
I had a brain-fart tonight.
Living close to (200 metres) a scenic route, being a bit different... wishing to sidestep commodity overproduction and capture value from our cattle.... a wish to help people...
"Cattle Therapy".
Can you see the smile, on this man's face?
Not everyone can access these curious, affectionate animals, I think it would actually pay OK if the sign on the roadside was right enough.
Tell me it won't work, please?
Living close to (200 metres) a scenic route, being a bit different... wishing to sidestep commodity overproduction and capture value from our cattle.... a wish to help people...
"Cattle Therapy".
Can you see the smile, on this man's face?
Not everyone can access these curious, affectionate animals, I think it would actually pay OK if the sign on the roadside was right enough.
Tell me it won't work, please?