[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: British Beef Situation
In article <420@vishwa.win-uk.net>, David Scott Libby
<dslibby@vishwa.win-uk.net> writes
>
>I'm English and don't really know much about gang mentality. But
>they are probably not the best choice. It will, I feel, only happen
>through people who want to do it when they want to do it. There's
>no use trying to convince people of things they're not interested
>in is there!
Not to mention that the jobs wouldn't be done properly, the cattle
mistreated and neglected. Most likely a total disaster with crops and
animals paying the price with their lives.
>Of course, but are still using a very large amount of bullocks. The
>dairy industry is big there and very few people eat beef (if
>any because the cow is considered sacred by most). I have spent time
>in India and am working with a colleague who has recently returned
>from a six month research period there. There is no doubt that
>animal draft is performs a very high proportion of the tillage.
The main reason for the movement of power sources from
man>bullock>horse>tractor was efficiency. It is a caution to bear in
mind that even using horse power and with a population of only some 45
million Britain was far from being able to feed itself between the two
wars. Indeed even in the 60's the idea that Britain would export grain
was considered absurd since we imported a significant proportion.
Bullocks have a number of rather severe disadvantages as a draught
animal. Firstly they can only work for a limited number of hours a day
because they are ruminants and need time cudding etc. I used to know the
number of hours a day but I think we are talking about 4 to 5 hours. On
top of that they are rather inefficient (being ruminants) energy wise,
so require rather a lot of land for grazing, in the pre-fertiliser days
I believe it was about 5ac per bullock. Quite a substantial proportion
of land was therefore lost to the farmer for rather a low output. I have
forgotten the figures but I would bet we are talking about 15-20 ac of
arable and 5ac of grazing per bullock. So 20-30% of the land was used
for motive power.
Horses were a big improvement. Firstly they could be fed on oats and
secondly they could (since they were not ruminants) work about 10
hrs/day and thirdly they produced much more power. As a result one horse
could handle 50-100 acres and still only required 6ac of land. You only
fed them oats when they were working, of course. This meant that only 5-
10% of your land was used for motive power. On top of that you could
handle more than double the amount of arable land per person. The price
of agricultural produce fell, reducing the burden of buying food very
significantly for the majority of the population. Starvation was
reduced.
Tractors were an even bigger advance. Now you didn't waste any land for
motive power. One highly skilled and motivated person could handle
1000ac. This was fortunate since it was increasingly hard to find people
to do the hard, dirty, smelly and unpleasant manual work agriculture had
previously needed doing. Anyone who has been hoeing on a field scale for
a month or so, or who has mucked out a yard of cattle (or horses) by
hand will testify to that. Much better to stack shelves in a
supermarket.
>>>Obviously it couldn't be done overnight. There probably aren't many
>>>farmers who would give up their warm tractor cabs for a bullock
>>>cart. But it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
>
>>Of course you would be willing to put in the 10-12 hours a day on a farm.
>>High heat, humidity, hard manual labor, no thank you I have done it and
>>much prefer working my keyboard.
>
>I have been a farm labourer since the age of 14 and so I know
>exactly what you're talking about. It is young mans work. But
>there may be a time in the not to distant future when we have no
>choice.
You wouldn't get anyone except real enthusiasts to do it. That's the
fact of the matter. Ther ain't enough of those to go round by a very
long shot.
>>>A thought for the future/sustainability/employment and the
>>>re-vitalising of rural economy.
Allow light industry into the rural economy instead of making the
villages static museums for the better off. Now THAT would help.
>>What percentage of the population would have to be working on the farm?
>>How many more acres would have to be plowed under?
None really left to plough under in the UK, at least worth talking
about. If you want olde fashioned agriculture anything from 100%
(manpower only) to 30%+-odd of the population if done with no tractors
or agrochemicals.
>>How do we reduce the population to the level that can be carried by the
>>land? Biological agents? Nuclear war?
>
>Interesting questions. Very pertinent questions. I, in all humility
>cannot answer them.
>
>The only reply I can give is that.............
>
>The process of life is spontaneous and that evolution seems to be a
>gradual and cumulative process. I like to use the analogy of a
>beautiful lotus flower growing out of the filth. Humans who choose to
>follow the paths of self-destruction will get what they want. Humans
>who choose to follow the path of life, of evolution.... will get
>carried through.
Trouble is with evolution is that it is blind. Nature really is red in
tooth and claw and doesn't care a jot for our (human) beliefs and
feelings. Sad, but true. Forget this at your peril.
>It seems to me things happen as a manifestation of our desire. There
>are people who do desire to use animal power for tillage. Although
>they are not necessarily in a position to do it. I want to do it
>and I have many friends who want to do it too. We are all
>connected to the land in some way or other and are by no means
>ignorant of the harsh world of modern farming. But we have vision
>which transcends the tunnel vision of the so-called economists. We
>also have the will power to do something. We couldn't be accused
>of sitting on our behinds all day waffling about things we don't
>understand.
Sell your houses. Give up your jobs. Buy a piece of land, you can get
quite a bit for half a dozen housesworth. Do it. I (genuinely) wish you
luck, what you are proposing is real tough.
>Many people throughout history were thought of as mad by those who
>feared them and they mostly turned out to be the most significant
>people in history (all the major prophets for example). I am
>honoured that Oz thinks me a fool. I consider it a compliment.
Eh? Oz doesn't think you a fool, certainly not. I fear you are
misguided. I really wouldn't want you to lose all your money and job
prospects on a number of years 'going back to nature' because nature is
a tough taskmaster. However if you do it I will genuinely wish you luck.
>The use of horses is still alive in England and there are too many
>enthusiasts for it to die.
And long may it continue.
>Since the BSE scare intelligent people are really starting to
>think more about agriculture. They are considering organic
>agriculture much more and there have been countless extremely
>positive articles in the quality newspapers pointing out the
>benefits of a more ecologically considerate agriculture.
Ah, which ecology? That is the question. I for one am not so proud to
realise that I am part of the ecology too. In any case nature wouldn't
let me forget it if I tried.
>It is impossible to cover all aspects of this subject as it is
>impossible for a single human to build a city. We are all parts of
>one single organism and the the light of that I humbly put forward
>my aspect of the whole.
Correct.
-------------------------------
'Oz "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"
References: