UK Lord seriously recommending turning veggie to save the planet

It really is frightening when British Government is influenced by the likes of Lord Nicholas Stern, a so called 'academic' and economist who authored the highly influential Stern Review on the economics of climate change.

The man is now suggesting seriously that we all turn veggie - and he has some support for his manic views.

This from Farmers Weekly UK:

People should stop eating meat to help the world conquer climate change, a leading scientist has warned.
"Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases," said Lord Stern of Brentford.
"It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better."
Lord Stern's comments are significant because he is the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming.
'A global agreement to tackle climate change would result in soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases, he said.
People's attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable, Lord Stern predicted.
"I think it's important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating," he said.
Lord Stern made the comments in a front-page interview with The Times.
The article has attracted more than 283 comments from internet readers.
"Eating a vegetarian diet is a lot cheaper than a meat one," wrote Jonte Jay.
"Let's face it - the most expensive foods on the average families shopping lists are meat and dairy."
Peter Radcliffe wrote: "Those who refuse to give up eating meat are contributing significantly to the destruction of the planet."
But most comments were far less sympathetic.
Nicholas Fox wrote: "Tell me I'm having a bad dream and not really living in such a ridiculous country."
Reuben Camara wrote: "Forget methane. There is far more hot air emitting from parasite Lord Stern's mouth than can possibly be good for the planet."

When this kind of myth starts to get traction you know that we are in trouble. It is now time to address some of the balderdash being spouted and to fight back. Our Government has already in principle agreed that agriculture is helping contribute to the problem. It really is only a slippery slope from there to what Lord Stern is suggesting. Why are we not standing up to this?

Key's 'Eva Peron' tour of the States avoiding the emissions issue

You'll have to excuse farmers if John Key's much trumpeted speech in New York last week declaring that Kiwis would lead a global research initiative to cut greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture doesn't leave them braying with joy.

It's not that they don't like the cheerful little fellow...it's just that he's so damn blatantly desperate to have New Zealand leading the world at something, that he's blindly about to all but sink our economy.

And no - those sentiments are not unrealistic. It is incredulous to think that the Government of the day would commit a country that is banking on its agriculture sector, into an emissions trading scheme that would see the same sector heavily penalised.

It all smacks of that 'little fish' chip on the shoulder we seem to carry around as Kiwis. If we're not at the forefront of everything (think mountaineering, women's vote...domestic violence) then we'll push our way forward, puff out the shoulders and say 'we'll do it mate', even if it does mean less money in the economy, slow economic growth and the difference between profitability and quitting the farm.

Isn't that what asking for a seat on the UN security council was all about after all?

And in all of it there is a distinct immaturity about our attitude, a need to be the teachers pet and to receive adulation from other countries who are not dumb enough to sign their countries to a death warrant.

What happened to the Lange 'up yours' nuclear ethos? Since when did we try to brown nose everyone?

Forget leading the world in research John boy, and sink that money into other agricultural research that scientists are clamouring to do...you know, the kind that puts more money in our pockets - yours and ours.

Farmers tired of hearing the same old speel from the top

Farmgirl was more than a little dismissive of David Carter's speech to the Federated Farmers conference this week.

He told us to, "adopt new ideas, abandon old ways of thinking and embrace different farming methods"...blah, blah, blah.

This sentence has been trotted out by every agricultural minister since butter was churned by hand. It means nothing and it's not helpful.

When will Carter and his fellow ministers realise that this kind of talk is nothing but condescending as it suggests today's farmers are slow on the uptake and are not looking towards the future.

Farmgirl suggests it's not farmers who need to embrace different methods but more the companies that represent them and the politicians who continue to impede progress by whacking on costs at the farm gate year in, year out with thinly veiled bureaucracy - Kyoto being one such example.

Mr Carter and others that repeat these meaningless phrases (Anderton was equally as good at that - his tongue could roll off thousands of them in a week) regarding the need for farmers to adopt new ideas would do well to visit the Young Farmer Contest in Palmerston North today and talk to this latest generation of farmers. Farmgirl thinks they would teach him a thing or two.

More annihilation of British Farmers rights

Our poor old British counterparts are suffering yet more draconian public whims with the news this week that a dairy farmer who happened to be grazing his cows in a field with a public access walkway through it, will face $1 million pounds in damages for injuries received by a walker after she was attacked by cattle in Cumbria in 2003.

If ever we needed proof that the general public in Britain has gone barmy, this is it, and it goes to the very heart of why farmers here fought so hard over public access issues here recently - they saw the future - and it looks costly.

According to the Farmers Weekly UK a judge at Preston Crown Court ruled the farmer was liable because he had not properly considered the risk his cattle posed.

"Ms McKaskie (the victim), who was walking her dog across one of Mr Cameron’s fields, is claiming £1m for the injuries she sustained in the attack.While Mr Cameron is appealing against the decision, legal experts warned the judge’s decision could set a legal precedent and mean farmers having to remove cattle from fields.

However the NFU said there was nothing in law to prevent farmers putting cattle and calves in fields with public access.

"It is a concern that following a recent court case in light of the accident that there is a suggestion cattle should not be grazed in fields with footpaths,” the union’s Robert Shearsby told the BBC.

"The NFU advises its members on the requirements of the law and what should be done to minimise risks."

The ruling came after a police officer was paid £10,000 in damages by a landowner after he was trampled by a herd of cattle."

This is of course what happens when the rights of the public are put ahead of the necessity of producing food. Farmers in Britain may own the land but it seems they barely have a foothold on it, and that is why we see so many immigrating to New Zealand. Who can blame them!

Contractors among the first to suffer recession in agriculture

Contractors up and down the country are reporting a dismal season across the board. Although farming has not yet been hit dramatically by the recession (apart from the decreasing dairy pay-out) it seems farmers have been tightening their belts and deciding not to hire cultivators and fertiliser spreaders, in favour of doing it themselves.

Locally many contractors have said they have had the quietest January/February for many years and March has only marginally been better.

The upshot of this is that we may see some contractors forced out of the industry, jobs lost, and less money floating about rural townships - which would be a further blow to the economy as the Government is looking particularly to the rural sector for growth.

Let's hope the situation improves.

Are environmental concerns a higher priority than producing the food itself?

It was interesting to hear Australian farm production specialist Barney Foran's predictions for NZ agriculture including his dire warning that we need to lead the world in environmental production or be forced out of business within 20 years.
Doomsday predictions for Kiwi agriculture are nothing new. For the past decade sustainability, traceability and consumer preference have been our mantras - but come on, is it really as important as Foran is saying?
There is a simple equation here that always seems to be missed out when it comes to these high brow apocalypse seminars;
Fact 1: The world and its people must eat.
Fact 2: There is not enough food to go around and this problem is expected to be exacerbated further in the next 20 years.
Fact 3: With so much land being given over to the latest fads in bio-technology, food production world-wide is falling while demand is rising.
The Dominion Post reported Foran predicts that within a decade, meat will be marketed on its greenhouse gas emissions as well as water quality, biodiversity assets and cultural values.
"Tomorrow's meat enterprises will focus on product quality first, backed up by measured and low environmental impacts, austere production chains, avoidance of most chemicals and heavy metals and making farmed landscapes waterwise, biodiverse and beautiful."
But I'm not so sure that this is the way it is heading and even if it did go this far I think NZ farmers are in a good place to meet these qualifications. Okay, so we're not perfect but at the end of the day we are pretty damn good compared to some of these Eastern block countries dumping masses of low quality polluted meat on to the market (think Romania).
Foran went on to say that to ensure farming systems remained financially viable a "trimming of lifestyle expectation may be required along with debt reduction, less energy and chemicals, and developing flocks and herds that do the work themselves."
But if we did that wouldn't we end up like our British counterparts, un-viable, un-economical - all the 'un' words you can think of? Cutting back on production is not the answer, nor is as Foran seems to be suggesting, smaller flocks to suit the greenies along with hand-outs from the Government for being good little children when we choose to use the horse and plough rather than the mean ole' direct drill.
Sometimes I think these so called 'experts' really don't have a clue. Their philosophy is so far removed from the reality...
I would be interested to hear your views on this.

Banks need to stop shafting farmers

Good on Federated Farmers president Don Nicolson for speaking out about the banks' appallingly high interest rates.

Farmers will have been sickened by the cuts offered to small home owners and other businesses while their own banks have made little to no significant cuts to their overdraft and mortgage rates.

The irony being that economists are lauding the potential of economic recovery coming from the rural hinterlands as they hope we expand and grow our operations. This is all good news for the banks so you would think they would move quickly to invigorate more growth - alas this has not been the case.

And what has been the reason for their sloth like grasp of interest rates? None other than greed. Shifting banks is a complicated exercise and one many farmers are loath to take on but you have to ask yourself if this wouldn't change if there was more competition in the market and if farmers were more willing to vote with their feet.

For too long the banking sector has been complacent about its rural clientele - yet relying on the sector to prop up its bottom line.

But as Nicolson suggests, enough is enough, and even the most loyal of clients will prove fickle if their bottom line is compromised by the inadequacy of their bankers.

The great urban-rural divide down under and on top!

So you thought we were the only country stuck with this ever growing resentment between the big smoke and rural industry?
While we may have been struggling to assert our prominence as an industry into the hearts and minds of Aucklanders (like John I don't give a stuff about the rest of New Zealand Banks) and politicians, the recession has helped agriculture to 'show off' its wares once more with economists stating it is us that will lead New Zealand out of recession and the news that Marac Finance is looking to regional New Zealand (yes you heard correctly) for economic growth and opportunity.

No such luck in England however. Read these comments from Farmer's Weekly blogger David Richardson:

"According to today's Daily Telegraph an un-named, but by implication, influential senior economic adviser to Gordon Brown told him the City of London was the only really important engine of the British economy and that "the rest of the country can be turned over to tourism".
Admittedly this advice was said to have been given sometime before the fall of Northern Rock. I should also point out that the expose has come from the UK National Defence Association which particularly deplored the fact that defence was looking at a £15bill shortfall in funding and that it was bracketed by the said economist alongside manufacturing and virtually all other industries.
There was no mention of agriculture or food in the report. But doesn't its content sound familiar? Our industry has suffered from the same kind of attitude. Government policy towards it, delivered through DEFRA, has sidelined us. Food and farming were branded unimportant. Tourism and a pretty environment were given top priority. You could just imagine that same economist telling Gordon Brown to let farming go hang and import most of our food. It is entirely consistent with what happened to defence.
And where has that advice to rely wholly on the City got us? I don't need to give an answer. It is transparently obvious to us all. And it confirms what dangerous people some economists are. Governments should sack them all and go back to legislating with common sense. But they've been listening to economists for so long they have probably lost the ability to think for themselves. Sometimes I pull out my hair in despair. And if you've seen my photograph you will realise where that leads."

In the words of our most famous export - Fred Dagg, "We don't know how lucky we are!"

India free trade negotiations a ray of hope for agriculture

Forget the recession - the Government's announcement of a possible free trade deal with India over the weekend was the best news to hit our livestock industry in 18 months.

India has a growing middle class, with money in pockets, and this bodes well for our lamb markets.

Okay, so negotiations are expected to take a number of years but it all looks hopeful and in these current conditions the fact that we are opening talks with the world's second largest nation is a huge coup for the Government.

Currently we export very little agricultural products as there are high tariffs on sheep meat. Even so we export $360 million each year, and import $284 million in return. Coke, coal, logs and wool are our main exports into the country.

Think then what free access to India's growing rich could mean and as Federated Farmers president Don Nicolson commented, "sheep meat is widely consumed and unaffected by religious dietary requirements where meat is consumed."

Might be time to buy in that breeding stock again and celebrate the positivity of this move.

Here's to free trade and lamb curries!

Will Cooper's witchhunt be in the best interests of NZ agriculture?

The Press said it all yesterday with a bold headline proclaiming PGG Wrightson's capital value had halved in just one week as the company's market capitalisation was slashed to $175 million on Friday.
Hindin Greene partner Grant Williamson, of Hamilton, said that investors had lost confidence in the company particularly after the Silver Fern Farms debacle.
Now, as reported on this blog earlier this week, Keith Cooper - CEO of SFF, is determined to go after Norgate for a figure widely rumoured to be around the $140 million mark.
There is no two ways about this, PGG Wrightson is in trouble. It has high debt levels and a big investor (Pyne Gould Corporation with a 21.5% percent share) wanting out. As Williamson suggests in the article, getting new debt is near impossible in the current economic environment.
So, is Keith Cooper's stance in the interests of New Zealand agriculture at this time, and indeed his own shareholders? Many of those shareholders will be PGG clients and none of them will want to see the company go belly up.
PGG Wrightson is an important company and Cooper's desperation to save Silver Fern's and his own bacon could see it pushed to the brink.
Norgate was stupid to go unconditional on the deal with Silver Ferns without funding but is it even stupider to sink his ship when so many farmers could be hurt by those actions? Couldn't a softly softly approach and a little more patience serve both companies interests?
It's a tricky question, and one I suspect Cooper and his men won't give any consideration to.
It would be interesting to hear your views on this...

A Fairyland Dream?

Finance minister Bill English said on taking office he had discovered a series of "unfunded projects and fairyland dreams." (Stuff)

So the economic stimulus plan to save us all has been launched. Cunningly the Government have been quick to point out that the $500 million of taxpayer money will be spread on infrastructure projects across a wide range of regions, which is code for 'you farmers will have to wait and be happy that a roading worker might upgrade a highway in the nearest city'.

And then of course there was the tiniest sardine dangled on a line. A small infrastructure unit will be set up and will probably need another $100 million of taxpayer money to fund it - this from a Government I seem to recall promising to put a halt to spending on the public service.

But here's the real bait - the 'fairyland dream' Bill English is really referring too. The unit, supposedly will be putting forth a number of long term projects with another $5-6 billion available to it over the next four years.

In political speech jargon all this means is that the Government is sweet talking and hedging its bets. Water storage is likely to become one of those 'unfunded projects' English spouts off about, miraculously brought out of the cupboard at election time when National decides it needs the rural vote.

Playing politics for the next election is a dangerous game. A few schools, 69 new state houses (of which most will be in Auckland) and a handful of roading projects is hardly going to save the economy. To do that, Bill would have to stop playing at putting away the cash to buy votes in three years time.

Seems the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree when it comes to the previous Government and this one.

What they have agreed to do:

$216 million on education, $124 million on housing (let's hope they get a few cockroach exterminators for their buck in Auckland) and $142 million on that old chestnut - roading.