Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #436 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-03-2008, 09:38 AM posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 21
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:


Stop the
Forestry Commission interfering with tree felling outside woodland
areas.


I'm sure the answer will be yes, but have any of you actually had
problems? In all honesty I have never experienced any unreasonable
interference from the forestry comission concerning felling.


  #437 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-03-2008, 05:58 PM posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:38:56 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:


Stop the
Forestry Commission interfering with tree felling outside woodland
areas.


I'm sure the answer will be yes, but have any of you actually had
problems? In all honesty I have never experienced any unreasonable
interference from the forestry comission concerning felling.


But then in your self imposed isolation I doubt you would have!

  #438 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-03-2008, 07:43 PM posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Old Codger wrote:

No I didn't. Pete the troll is playing with headers again.

But then in your self imposed isolation I doubt you would have!


As Pete never reads what he posts and desires only to provoke
argument it is safest to assume that anything he espouses is
at least unsafe and probably malicious.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
  #439 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-03-2008, 09:20 PM posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 7
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

In message , Robert Seago
writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:


Stop the
Forestry Commission interfering with tree felling outside woodland
areas.


I'm sure the answer will be yes, but have any of you actually had
problems? In all honesty I have never experienced any unreasonable
interference from the forestry comission concerning felling.


5 cubic metres is less than one mature Oak here. I do not need the
hassle of asking permission to fell and being required to replant under
compulsion.

I have planted trees because I enjoy doing so. They will not be
harvested in my lifetime. There is a perception that a sapling belongs
to the person who caused the planting. However, at 100mm that sapling
undergoes a transition and falls under the control of others who had no
interest or input for the previous 20 or so years.

regards


--
Tim Lamb
  #440 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-03-2008, 10:10 PM posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 21
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:


5 cubic metres is less than one mature Oak here. I do not need the
hassle of asking permission to fell and being required to replant under
compulsion.

I have not experienced hassle, nor have had to replant anything.

I have enjoyed planting one or two tres as well.



  #441 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-03-2008, 10:46 PM posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 60
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Mar 21, 9:20*pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Robert Seago
writes

In article ,
* Tim Lamb wrote:


Stop the
Forestry Commission interfering with tree felling outside woodland
areas.


I'm sure the answer will be yes, but have any of you actually had
problems? In all honesty I have never experienced any unreasonable
interference from the forestry comission concerning felling.


5 cubic metres is less than one mature Oak here. I do not need the
hassle of asking permission to fell and being required to replant under
compulsion.

I have planted trees because I enjoy doing so. They will not be
harvested in my lifetime. There is a perception that a sapling belongs
to the person who caused the planting. However, at 100mm that sapling
undergoes a transition and falls under the control of others who had no
interest or input for the previous 20 or so years.


Has the legislation disuaded you from planting any trees that you
otherwise would have planted?


regards



--
Tim Lamb


  #442 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-03-2008, 11:16 PM posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 94
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate


"Buxqi" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 9:20 pm, Tim Lamb wrote:

I have planted trees because I enjoy doing so. They will not be
harvested in my lifetime. There is a perception that a sapling belongs
to the person who caused the planting. However, at 100mm that sapling
undergoes a transition and falls under the control of others who had no
interest or input for the previous 20 or so years.


Has the legislation disuaded you from planting any trees that you
otherwise would have planted?

------
Certainly it has been one of the factors that has put me off putting a few
trees in, the sure knowledge that my children would get all the cost and
disadvantages of having them, but not be able to harvest the crop

Jim Webster


  #443 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2008, 09:41 AM posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 21
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

In article ,
Jim Webster wrote:



Has the legislation disuaded you from planting any trees that you
otherwise would have planted?


------ Certainly it has been one of the factors that has put me off
putting a few trees in, the sure knowledge that my children would get
all the cost and disadvantages of having them, but not be able to
harvest the crop


Jim Webster

You can be sure that if the trees are ever worth harvesting again theyu
will be allowed to.

As I have stated, rules have never hindered our trust to my knowledge,
either felling or plating where we have wanted to.

  #444 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2008, 09:58 AM posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 94
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate


"Robert Seago" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Webster wrote:



Has the legislation disuaded you from planting any trees that you
otherwise would have planted?


------ Certainly it has been one of the factors that has put me off
putting a few trees in, the sure knowledge that my children would get
all the cost and disadvantages of having them, but not be able to
harvest the crop


Jim Webster

You can be sure that if the trees are ever worth harvesting again theyu
will be allowed to.


Since when has the state worried about damaging the economic viability of a
family enterprise?
They are as likely to be nationalised if they become that valuable. ;-(


As I have stated, rules have never hindered our trust to my knowledge,
either felling or plating where we have wanted to.


are you commercial? that is the issue. If I plant trees I use our families
money and have to get that money back over the years.

Jim Webster


  #445 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2008, 10:31 AM posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 7
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

In message
,
Buxqi writes

I have planted trees because I enjoy doing so. They will not be
harvested in my lifetime. There is a perception that a sapling belongs
to the person who caused the planting. However, at 100mm that sapling
undergoes a transition and falls under the control of others who had no
interest or input for the previous 20 or so years.


Has the legislation disuaded you from planting any trees that you
otherwise would have planted?


Umm... I find that difficult to answer.

Recent moves to steer the CAP away from production support and towards
beneficial rural land management make planting decisions less easy. My
children have no interest in taking over this farm so there is no long
term financial benefit to unaided planting. Immature woodland, with no
sporting income, might be seen as a negative asset.

Aided planting has ties which might interfere with unforeseen changes in
agricultural land use.

I have not yet joined the *entry level* tier of environmental payments
simply because annual hedge trimming is forbidden and the agreement is
locked for 5 years. Anyone putting marginal arable land into low input
production might seriously regret the doubling of cereal and pulse
prices over the last 12 months.

I will continue to plant trees where they are unlikely to cause me
problems, on land not suitable for cropping. Sometimes this may
discourage an inappropriate use such as highway verge parking or access
for fly tipping:-)

regards

--
Tim Lamb


  #446 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2008, 10:34 AM posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
Oz Oz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 60
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Robert Seago writes
You can be sure that if the trees are ever worth harvesting again theyu will
be allowed to.

As I have stated, rules have never hindered our trust to my knowledge,
either felling or plating where we have wanted to.


Well they certainly affected us. The procedure for moving a failed
replant (done by our predecessors) took huge amounts of work and effort.
Most people would have given up. They have also refused us permission to
remove a couple of trees invisible from outside but which were in the
way. No, they had to be replanted in the same place.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.



  #447 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2008, 05:06 PM posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 21
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

In article ,
Jim Webster wrote:


You can be sure that if the trees are ever worth harvesting again
they will be allowed to.


Since when has the state worried about damaging the economic viability
of a family enterprise? They are as likely to be nationalised if they
become that valuable. ;-(


You might as well say they will nationalise wheat growing now.
Nationalisation has pretty well always been when a firm has pretty well
failed.


As I have stated, rules have never hindered our trust to my knowledge,
either felling or planting where we have wanted to.


are you commercial? that is the issue. If I plant trees I use our
families money and have to get that money back over the years.


Is this something that has ever happened or do you just think it is likely
to happen some time?

  #448 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2008, 07:34 PM posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 94
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate


"Robert Seago" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Webster wrote:


You can be sure that if the trees are ever worth harvesting again
they will be allowed to.


Since when has the state worried about damaging the economic viability
of a family enterprise? They are as likely to be nationalised if they
become that valuable. ;-(


You might as well say they will nationalise wheat growing now.
Nationalisation has pretty well always been when a firm has pretty well
failed.


not with agriculture, they called it war-ag and insisted on wheat being
planted where wheat had never been planted before



As I have stated, rules have never hindered our trust to my knowledge,
either felling or planting where we have wanted to.


are you commercial? that is the issue. If I plant trees I use our
families money and have to get that money back over the years.


Is this something that has ever happened or do you just think it is likely
to happen some time?


would you rely on a crop that had to grow through 12 general elections? :-(

There are trees that are coming up to harvest that have passed through three
or four different tax regimes, to either encourage or discourage their
production

Jim Webster



  #449 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2008, 07:06 AM posted to uk.business.agriculture,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation
Oz Oz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 60
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Robert Seago writes
In article ,
Jim Webster wrote:


You can be sure that if the trees are ever worth harvesting again
they will be allowed to.


Since when has the state worried about damaging the economic viability
of a family enterprise? They are as likely to be nationalised if they
become that valuable. ;-(


You might as well say they will nationalise wheat growing now.
Nationalisation has pretty well always been when a firm has pretty well
failed.


Thats not true in most of the world, usually the opposite.

are you commercial? that is the issue. If I plant trees I use our
families money and have to get that money back over the years.


Is this something that has ever happened or do you just think it is likely
to happen some time?


Que?

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.





Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Rudy Canoza[_1_] Vegan 1141 04-05-2012 06:10 PM
"Fried food heart risk 'a myth' (as long as you use olive oil or sunflower oil)" Christopher M.[_3_] General Cooking 34 07-02-2012 05:31 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] Vegan 47 24-05-2010 03:22 PM
+ Asian Food Experts: Source for "Silver Needle" or "Rat Tail" Noodles? + Chris General Cooking 1 29-12-2006 07:13 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Jonathan Ball Vegan 76 28-02-2004 10:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017