Where do the cows go?

_Brian wrote:

Can you please say which payment you get that allows land return to nature, genuinely I’d like to know. We allow small corners return wild but fear of being disallowed on larger areas stops us.

_Brian wrote:

I’m genuinely not aware of any scheme that pays a subsidy for wilding land.

Don't bother, they're talking through their hole.

El Tarangu wrote: »

Probably not.

Do you think farmers would continue raising cattle at current levels if either:
(i) increasing numbers of people stopped eating beef for whatever reason, or;
(ii) they no longer received subsidies at current levels?

Beef farming must be on the cusp of a change.
Prices paid are through the floor and continuing to fall.

The vast majority are making no profit on their animals at this point. Tradition and hope for a bounce back has people holding on but many I work with are cutting numbers.

Ironically the issues in China may put a floor under prices but that’s not a certainty.

The majority of subs are not tied to animal numbers so that’s no reason to keep them up.

I can say I’m in the absolute minority of farmers who believe we are overproducing beef. The vast majority of beef farms could cut by 25% or more and still have the same bottom line at the end of the year.

machaseh wrote: »

In India, they also don't eat cows and they roam the streets of cities freely. They are not allowed to kill them. so in a hypothetical scenario where from one day to the other everybody would turn vegan that may be what might happen.

Except meat consumption is stagnant in most places and in many countries it is even rising, I dont see veganism taking over anytime soon.

Their really is no end to stuff being made up in this thread.

According to a 2016 USDA review, India has rapidly grown to become the world's largest beef exporter, accounting for 20% of world's beef

There dairy industry is massive also, as Hindu's might not slaughter cattle but they do drink milk.

And do you really think cows will be left wandering the streets here where people won't put up with dog sh1t?

Bodie Damp Motorbike wrote: »

Why's that? I thought this country was covered with them until we cut them all down.

It's not that simple. The forests that were here developed over thousands of years. Farting belching grazing animals had an important role in keeping the ground clear enough for the trees to develop. Re-wilding like many would suggest here would take much longer and leave the country covered in briars and matted grass/weeds. Some species of trees might trive well enough eventually, from what I've seen silver birch and Ash are normally fairly good at establishing themselves. Relying on a few species would not be a great idea either as disease like Ash die back could be devastating.

Also the whole country was never completely forest like many seem to believe.

I’m still questioning the post earlier that said payments were available for rewilding land.
No one has come forward with information on this and at this stage I’m tending to call it out for BS to be honest.

In addition only people who place zero value on their land will opt for forestry at the moment.

Yes there is 15 years premium. But that’s it. Currently the grants available for planting are consumed by the forestry companies.

I read some reports recently and clearfell is paying for clearing, transport to process, and replanting land, there is no final profit for the farmer. There are also no premiums on land that’s into its second rotation.

So, your expecting farmers to place land into forestry for 15years modest premiums and then nothing, it’s lost forever and can never be returned to farming. Land that’s been worked for generations to improve it, by parents and grandparents it’s very hard to abandon all that for 15 years payments and then nothing ever again. Many take a more pragmatic viewpoint and see their time as a custodian for the next generation in the hopes that farming will be better for them.

So saying forestry is a viable option is like saying Veganism is a fad, frankly most farmers find the notion of forestry insulting to hem and their heritage.

Effects wrote: »

Most vegans keep unwanted cattle as pets, until they die of natural causes.
All cows are artificially inseminated so they can't survive in the wild anyway.

Ever hear of a bull?

Effects wrote: »

As a farmer myself, I've already given up land to return to nature. I get paid by the EU to do so.

Yeah you are farmer alright.
And I am batman :rolleyes:

Effects wrote: »

Yeah, I'm going to take the word of a confirmed troll such as yourself :rolleyes:

I'm sure you have loads of naturally inseminated, inbred cattle running around your farm. :rolleyes:

Fecking rich you chastising others after the muppetry you come out with.:rolleyes:


Fekcing hell I stumbled on this thread off front page, but it has been enlightening in some senses.
If this is the calibre of people who claim to be vegan then no wonder others laugh at them.

If anything artificially insemination means a bigger gene pool and less inbreeding than the same bulls doing the work.

jmayo wrote: »

Ever hear of a bull?
...

To be fair I can understand people not knowing about agriculture and farming. However when other posters take time to detail the facts and can back that up as in the case here of bulls being used on farms - we bizarrely have those posters getting attacked, and even called 'trolls'. And then we have a 'campaign to stop other posters commenting at all. :rolleyes:

Tbh this type of antagonism aimed at any other group - I reckon it could be classed as hate. But bizarrely it seems for some ok here to attack farmers and others.

If anyone doesn't believe something - better to ask to provide some backup and not launch an attack. If posters don't provide backup - then that's sufficient to show they are spoofing imo. At the end of the day it makes those throwing that type of crap - little more than what they accuse others of.