Monbiot's Book - a farmer's view

[bracken basher]

HILL farmers fear moves to “re-wild” the Cambrian Mountains would be akin to the herding of native Americans onto reserves to satisfy a “romantic whim”.
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/re-wild-cambrian-mountains-would-be-4032239

The report can be found by clicking the link at the bottom of this article-
http://www.fuw.org.uk/read-press-release/items/fuw-to-launch-cambrian-mountain-grazing-report.html

 

[FonterraFarmer]

While I have never heard of Monbiot ,what has his contribution to Agriculture actually been?Also talk ,discussion, reasearch and asking questions might be easy and clean compared to overalls and gumboots....

 

[DrDunc]

@Sophie Yeo
Farming is a very isolated profession. We work very long hours seven days a week for much of the year. The vast majority will socialise (though infrequently) predominantly with other farmers.

We are subjected to every increasing levels of bureaucracy from Brussels and the "department". The civil service has a vested interest in generating new schemes and rules to enforce; that's what pays their pension.

Many rules enforced upon us are considered to be purely civil servant job creation. Some are even completely unworkable. For example; sheep electronic identification (EID), or tagging. We must have a 100% accuracy level of records, have no missing tags, and are subjected to inspections, without prior notice, by civil servants. Their job is to find something wrong.

When ovine are moved from our farm, their tags must be individually recorded electronically, and this must be 100% accurate, or we will be fined. The technology to read these tags to 100% accuracy simply DOES NOT EXIST. Therefore this EU ruling ensures that every inspection will result in a fine on the producer.

This is typical of the rulings to which we work. It is very frustrating! It perpetuates resentment, mistrust, and scepticism about people who don't live our life.

Then along comes someone like gorgeous George raving about how awful sheep are, not because it's true, but because it sells his books, and gets his ego publicised. He doesn't even have the decency to do his research properly, nor even get his facts correct.

I not defending myself and my colleagues for being suspicious, or of treating you in a manner you find belligerent; we should not do so. I am hoping that having attempted to explain a little of the psyche of a farmer, you can perceive maybe why you have received this treatment?

Please continue to ask questions to learn why faith healer and snake oil salesmen like George Monbiot are not ranked favourably by those he thinks to criticise.

Also remember though, if farmers haven't got someone or something to complain about, we resort to bitching among ourselves about each other

 

[Bill the Bass]

The problem I can see with Monbiot's (and many others for that matter) simplistic view of re-wilding is that the uplands of the the UK do not operate in isolation from the rest of UK agriculture.

Our upland communities and landscape are there becasue of the UK's stratified livestock system, which provides the seed stock for the majority of the national sheep flock and to some extent the nations beef herd, as well as the high quality suckled calves that make up the premium end of the UK beef market, The by-product of this service is the landscape which, in the Lake District for example, over 16 million people come to enjoy every year - they dont some to see scrub, wild fires and broken down, deserted farm steadings.

Getting rid of this resource (and it is a resource for the whole of society by the way) would be incredibly short sighted, the loss of biodiversity is not just about flowers, trees and bees it is also about genetic diversity and conservation of food producing animals to avoid a 'domino effect' collapse in the food chain. There has been alot of research done by the FAO to suggest that livestock farming is becoming too dependant on a small number of breeds (look what happened to the financial sector when it got to reliant on a small number of big banks) and Monbiots 'ethnic cleansing' of the hills would only serve to speed up this process, leaving the rest of society with a poorer and less resilient countryside and food chain.

 

[exmoor dave]

@exmoor dave This, by the way, is a blog about farmers' markets I maintained for a while. I mention meat. There is even a picture of me eating a bratwurst at some point. So you will see that I am very serious about supporting farmers.

http://findmeatthemarket.com/page/2/

I am enjoying talking through these issues with you, but it is hard if you are going to read wildly different things to what I actually said in my statements, and then proceed to tell me that from this you can see my "real views".

OK. But you did actually write that meat is rarely sustainable or ethical. Please go back and read your post and tell me how I mis read it. If I've mis interpreted what you have write then I apologise. As it has been said we are a very protective bunch who seem to be blamed for many of societies ills!

And no there's no problem with you not eating meat. That's your choice. As long as you're not trying to tell others to avoid meat.

Thank you, that's very clear. What about Monbiot's proposed changes to the system, about giving farmers more choice about how they use the land? Would less grazing truly result in less food production? Why does Wales continue to import so much meat, if its uplands are as productive as farmers say they are?

Do you mean specific meats? Or meat in general?
Because Wales would produce a lot of lamb (much of which would be exported) but very little pork or chicken etc. .so that would need to be imported.
That doesn't make the uplands any less productive. Just that pork and poultry production isn't suitable for the uplands.
If this twonk monbiot doesn't like sheep grazing the hills then he would have a fit to see what damage pigs would do on the wild hills.

I hope that is helpful.

 

[Roger Perry]

Feral hogs are quite a problem in parts of this country, once the balance of nature is upset it can take a while to correct. Your issues with a large badger overpopulation could be because they have no natural predator.

 

[topground]

First off I haven't read Monbiot's book and unless it arrives free I won't be. I have however seen some interviews and it strikes me that his theories can in part be tested within our existing landscape. There are areas of upland that have seen changes in farming practice in the last 50 years, largely due to market forces, CAP and SFP in their various forms. The land affected will have reverted to "it's natural state" whatever that is and the local wildlife will have adapted to either take advantage or have perished because the habitat is unsuitable. There is an opportunity to compare that which has reverted to that which has remained under the same farming patterns for generations.
Change over time used to be called evolution until the academics got involved. Now we have minority pressure groups pushing for the introduction or reintroduction of species that have previously failed with no thought given to what happens when they have no natural predators and at the top of the food chain how much damage they do to species further down the food chain.
In my part of the world there is virtually no shooting so top end predators are not controlled so what do we end up with? Huge numbers of buzzards, don't see Kestrels anymore or Hares. Don't see Lapwings and rarely hear a skylark.

 

[suffolksmallholder]

First off I haven't read Monbiot's book and unless it arrives free I won't be. I have however seen some interviews and it strikes me that his theories can in part be tested within our existing landscape. There are areas of upland that have seen changes in farming practice in the last 50 years, largely due to market forces, CAP and SFP in their various forms. The land affected will have reverted to "it's natural state" whatever that is and the local wildlife will have adapted to either take advantage or have perished because the habitat is unsuitable. There is an opportunity to compare that which has reverted to that which has remained under the same farming patterns for generations.
Change over time used to be called evolution until the academics got involved. Now we have minority pressure groups pushing for the introduction or reintroduction of species that have previously failed with no thought given to what happens when they have no natural predators and at the top of the food chain how much damage they do to species further down the food chain.
In my part of the world there is virtually no shooting so top end predators are not controlled so what do we end up with? Huge numbers of buzzards, don't see Kestrels anymore or Hares. Don't see Lapwings and rarely hear a skylark.

topground, you mention buzzards. The Chilterns have buzzards in reasonable numbers but on the other hand they have red kites in unreasonable numbers, in fact almost to plague proportions! During the back end of winter they are so hungry they virtually drop out of the trees. This mainly applies to the youngsters who haven't been canny enough to forage well enough during their first winter. Those people who do have the misinformed idea that they should be fed end up with nearly fifty circling overhead!!
Originally introduced near Stokenchurch and helped with a millionaires money they were a great sight in the early days but I really do wonder what happens next. Tiggywinkles, the charity originally set up to deal with hedgehogs, do end up with a few that are scooped up by MOP's. There are also reports of these birds swooping on un-suspecting people. I have seen mediaeval pictures of them pinching the wares out of peddlars baskets so it is not a historically unusual occurrence. This is just one example of disproportion helped by humankind. Yes and very much to the detriment of many other bird species.

I may go and look on amazon for this Mr Monbiot fellows book.....I have an amazon birthday voucher from my sister that I haven't spent yet and it may go some way to helping with the purchase.....
SS

 

[DrDunc]

Here is an example of the effects misguided rules can have when they upset the balance of nature.

The 100 acres of low ground within my rented 1600 acre hill farm is now "wetland". Much of it was ploughable for barley thirty years ago. It had been used to out winter cattle for near a century.

This area was unique in its diverse fauna, but especially its wildlife. Lapwing in particular existed here in hundreds of breeding pair. The RSPB have regularly surveyed the bird population over the four decades of my life.

Roughly twenty years ago, my father (rip) entered into an environmental scheme. The summer grazing was severely restricted to encourage "wilderness". The ditches could only be cleaned out if the department thought it necessary. I managed to get permission once, 9 years ago. No pesticides, lime, or even dung could be spread. The ground couldn't be used for supplementary feeding, so outwintering cattle wasn't allowed.

The ground is now bog. The vegetation is overgrown and rotting, except for a few acres where I can get sheep to graze occasionally.

The RSPB survey for this year?

Well as I said, there were hundreds of breeding pair.

This year so far.......

Two nesting pair

So much for letting things revert "back to nature".

barstewards.

 

[snowhite]

paddy french a strong welsh name

he must have being thinking of me , lol

 

[caveman]

Here is an example of the effects misguided rules can have when they upset the balance of nature.

The 100 acres of low ground within my rented 1600 acre hill farm is now "wetland". Much of it was ploughable for barley thirty years ago. It had been used to out winter cattle for near a century.

This area was unique in its diverse fauna, but especially its wildlife. Lapwing in particular existed here in hundreds of breeding pair. The RSPB have regularly surveyed the bird population over the four decades of my life.

Roughly twenty years ago, my father (rip) entered into an environmental scheme. The summer grazing was severely restricted to encourage "wilderness". The ditches could only be cleaned out if the department thought it necessary. I managed to get permission once, 9 years ago. No pesticides, lime, or even dung could be spread. The ground couldn't be used for supplementary feeding, so outwintering cattle wasn't allowed.

The ground is now bog. The vegetation is overgrown and rotting, except for a few acres where I can get sheep to graze occasionally.

The RSPB survey for this year?

Well as I said, there were hundreds of breeding pair.

This year so far.......

Two nesting pair

So much for letting things revert "back to nature".

barstewards.

Why did your father enter into the scheme in the first instance?
Are you not just seeng, that which is NOT there now, and and not all that which IS there now?
Don't worry. There will be another subsidised scheme coming along soon, which will pay you to rip the whole lot up and allow you to fill the place up with genetically modified crops.
Will you take the payment?

 

[snowhite]

Okay, I'm happy to do this openly (and I also direct these questions to @DrDunc and @exmoor dave and anyone else who wants to join in). Remember, I'm not a farmer, and so I apologise in advance if my questions seem rather basic. But I would like to know the following:

1. What exactly is the problem with Monbiot's suggestion that farmers are simply given more choice over what they do with the land that receives the subsidy?

2. Is your problem with Monbiot or conservationists? Because in his book, Monbiot criticises the work of conservationists, too.

3. How much land do you individually own, how do you farm it, and how does the subsidies system work for you individually?

4. I'm confused by how you think that as a "middle class" argument, it somehow excludes large landowners. Aren't people who own large amounts of land the very definition of middle class?

5. What is the problem with continuing to farm the agriculturally richest land and letting nature take over in other parts? Would this affect farmers economically, or are objections purely because you think it would not be the best approach in terms of biodiversity?

6. Do you think there are any problems with the stipulations in the CAP that land must be cleared of certain plants if the farmer is to receive the subsidy?

Thanks so much to anyone who can help - I'm very interested to hear your responses.

If you look at some of the other topics on the forum your questing s are answered , except the 6th , which is a just something that should be expanded or forgotten , as it comes in under logic ( but the way you take weeds out of fields could be looked at )
question 5 has being looked at here but we as farmers are split in this one , as there as as many ways to look at this as farmers and that is part of the problem with the pac as it is cooked up by people that have only a text book knowledge of farming and get lobbied by big interest's which are not all-ways pro- farm

(4) We could sum this up with the saying '' my dick is bigger than yours'', your idea of middle class is different to my idea ,we sometimes say big when out like an asses tool , farmers are no different to others as some think if he or she has 10 cows more or 100 sheep more than the next guy we are upper-class , as I think as an outsider (Paddyfrenchwoman )that in the uk even the Queen her self is a large land owner and she might be insulted if you called her middle-class , MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS are allso own large amounts of land , but you get some people that think they are the Queen like posh spice that is the new rich ,and you will all ways get the snobby ones so this comes down to a very different topic about people as a hole and how they see them selves, farmers are no different to any other we get split up into 3 the big, middle , and the small , just what i can see as an outsider is that small in Wales is much smaller than small in England , so a middle size farmer in Wales or France or Paddyland would be looked on in England as small , ( a paddy was working in England once and went down to the pub at night , at the bar he talked to a farmer that was on about the big farmer most of the night , but when paddy asked him what size farm he had it turned out he had 350 acres which would be a very big farm in paddyland back then ,about 25 years ago )

(3 ) this is your shortest question but in fact is the most difficult to go into as farming has being effected by the pac so it is not easy to see in how many ways it has changed , I look at it in this way if farming never got the help to get restarted after the war by the pac (and I am much older than you and never known farming with out pac so what hope have you ) farmers have lost the know how of selling their own product and have gone for selling more and more at less and less profit much like the supermarket and the small town shop ,we have no say in what we get for what we produce and can't even say often in what grade or quantity we are selling as we are the only ones that have not the right as the buyer has this power , all tests weights and grades are carried out buy people outside the farm , often the buyer takes into account the pac when given a price so we don't get extra but part of our price comes at the end of the year which is a disadvantage and some farmers fear the way Europe are giving more and more power to the big multi-national industry .IF I can give an example Europe is doing away with milk quota now and the milk buyers are using it to concentrate their collection area , so if a farmer is to far or on a narrow road or areas that the distance between farms to to far the truck will not pass , this will reshape farming and the country-side , today is a Sunday I milk cows the milk tank stopped working last evening and the milk factory own the tank so will not send out the repair man but pay me to dump last nights milk and the milk of this morning was collected but not tested the man next to me his tank is owned by him would have to get out brake-down and pay them twice or 3 times for out of hours and the milk would be tested and pay a fine if not up to standard

so you see we are all different at different needs in life different stage in life ,and I being shy and not one that has lots to say on things that go on out side the farm gate and not well travelled or educated I can't be of much help

 

[DrDunc]

Why did your father enter into the scheme in the first instance?
Are you not just seeng, that which is NOT there now, and and not all that which IS there now?
Don't worry. There will be another subsidised scheme coming along soon, which will pay you to rip the whole lot up and allow you to fill the place up with genetically modified crops.
Will you take the payment?

My father had been told his life was to end from a rare cancer (he never smoked a day in his life). Knowing this, he thought becoming organic and "environmentally friendly" was the right thing to do.

He lived long enough to become frustrated by the constant altering of organic rules that, in his opinion, resulted in animal cruelty if adhered to.

He also witnessed the start of the decline of the wildlife, in particular the endangered birds that he had helped to provide habitat for all his working life. Very little lives in the "wilderness" now.

This is just one example of the appalling effects so called "environmental" greening measures have had on the delicate balance of nature. There are many more, some are given in this thread.

Caveman if you're going to attempt to grind your axe, then you need to listen to advice from Skippy;

"Aunt slappy, you gotta ask better questions. They're gonna railroad you"

 

[blackbob]

DrDunc (as Steve Wright would say, "are you a real doctor?") I'm a make-two-blades-of-grass-grow-where-one-grew-before kinda guy although I do like to see and hear the skylarks, oyster-catchers and peewits too, I hate to see good farmland which our ancestors sweated to improve, being planted with trees, this made viable only with huge and lasting subsidy (how much paper will we need in 50 years' time?), and as for this modern nonsense of planting hawthorn hedges, with several metres of land wasted, inside new top-spec fences with rabbit netting on both sides - I sense you are itching to get back on that land, get it limed and mucked and ploughed and what used to be called 'reclaimed' - I know I would be!

 

[Philip Watkins]

DrDunc (as Steve Wright would say, "are you a real doctor?")

Yes he is, this was established on another thread. Can't remember which one now.

 

[IANTO]

DrDunc (as Steve Wright would say, "are you a real doctor?") I'm a make-two-blades-of-grass-grow-where-one-grew-before kinda guy although I do like to see and hear the skylarks, oyster-catchers and peewits too, I hate to see good farmland which our ancestors sweated to improve, being planted with trees, this made viable only with huge and lasting subsidy (how much paper will we need in 50 years' time?), and as for this modern nonsense of planting hawthorn hedges, with several metres of land wasted, inside new top-spec fences with rabbit netting on both sides - I sense you are itching to get back on that land, get it limed and mucked and ploughed and what used to be called 'reclaimed' - I know I would be!

Yes he is, this was established on another thread. Can't remember which one now.

Perhaps you should define what you mean by a "real doctor".

Perhaps you mean a "Medical Doctor" with a Degree in Medicine.

Anyone with a PhD, is also entitled in law to be referred to as Doctor, and may have spent several more years studying his subject.

3 years Degree Course. 2 years MA, MPhil, or MSc, and then 3 years doing a PhD.

Is one more "real" than the other?

 

[caveman]

My father had been told his life was to end from a rare cancer (he never smoked a day in his life). Knowing this, he thought becoming organic and "environmentally friendly" was the right thing to do.

He lived long enough to become frustrated by the constant altering of organic rules that, in his opinion, resulted in animal cruelty if adhered to.

He also witnessed the start of the decline of the wildlife, in particular the endangered birds that he had helped to provide habitat for all his working life. Very little lives in the "wilderness" now.

This is just one example of the appalling effects so called "environmental" greening measures have had on the delicate balance of nature. There are many more, some are given in this thread.

Caveman if you're going to attempt to grind your axe, then you need to listen to advice from Skippy;

"Aunt slappy, you gotta ask better questions. They're gonna railroad you"

Ha ha ha.
Very good Dunc.
I'm not grinding an axe.
I was just pointing out in a roundabout way, that, it takes two to tango.
With your elaboration of your point, it could be seen by the onlooker, that your father wanted to slow down due to his illness and thought that maybe, taking a few quid for doing nothing with the 100 acres was the way to an easier life.
I fail to see why "they" are barstewards and your side of the agreement are innocent.
Can you not pull out of the scheme?
Oh. No. I forgot. Your waiting for an improvement scheme to come along, complete with huge grants and other payments to entice you to enter into the same. It's what farmers, (or controllers of land), do.
Do you have to manage it at all, or do you just leave it be, chuck a bit of livestock at it when you feel the need and take the payment?
If you were to "farm it properly", would it be any more benifit to your bottom line, or maybe more pertinent, the environment, or would you just be chucking a lot of cash at it, making the same or an even smaller margin, whilst waving your willy?
What other species are present now, which were not there before?
I'm sorry to hear about the way your fathers life ended.
Are you suggesting that smoking caused the cancer which killed him, even though he never smoked, much in the way passive smoking seems to be the favoured blame for the demise of Roy Castle?
If not. Why mention the smoking?
In fact. Why even mention the cancer?
Unless, of course, it is a sympathy excuse for the reason your father entered the scheme.
I would suggest, you don't need to excuse your fathers decisions. Its what fathers and farmers do and long may they continue to do so.
Many chemicles which have been used in intensive agriculture could also have the effect of causing cancers if one were subject to constant exposure to them maybe?
That may well be what caused your father to think to change the managment of his farm.
Perhaps carrying on and "improving" the work your father started, with what would have probably been a decision based upon years of expierience is the way to go now, rather than just reverting back to what was there before, which you may perceive to be the ideal.
A vast number of lapwings would not be the only indicator of the state of the wildlife content or environmental value of a certain piece of land.

 

[Philip Watkins]

Perhaps you should define what you mean by a "real doctor".

Perhaps you mean a "Medical Doctor" with a Degree in Medicine.

Anyone with a PhD, is also entitled in law to be referred to as Doctor, and may have spent several more years studying his subject.

3 years Degree Course. 2 years MA, MPhil, or MSc, and then 3 years doing a PhD.

Is one more "real" than the other?

It was this thread http://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/farm-towing-4-x-4.5173/page-2#post-75233

I did a PhD in tyre and suspension vibration at Cranfield Uni.

 

[DrDunc]

A few digs about subsidies. An insult or two towards farmers. A bit of scare mongering about chemicals. An inability to absorb factual information that doesn't correlate with ones faith.....

Hmmmm, somebody forgot to irrelevantly insert something about the dangers of genetically modified crops.

That axe is getting quite sharp.

Careful now Aunt Slappy, your disguise is slipping.

 

[blackbob]

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1914782
Old news I know, the subject of the Panorama programme last year, the distasteful (embarrassing?) use of subsidy