4 ms·
So the farmers had three choices: 1) Don't take the set aside money 2) Take the set aside money and don't keep cows 3) Take the set aside money and keep cows in
by flir 3y ago
So the farmers had three choices: 1) Don't take the set aside money 2) Take the set aside money and don't keep cows 3) Take the set aside money and keep cows in sheds
They chose (3) and the environmentalists are to blame? Ok, I guess. That must be some orchid, to require cattle to be kept off the land year-round, rather than just in the flowering season. How do they keep the land from returning to scrub? Mow once a year for hay/silage?
In my limited experience farmers apply set aside to the least-useful bits of the farm, not the whole farm.
- verisimi 3y agoI don't blame farmers for taking money. Who wouldn't take extra money? However, I do think it's a slippery slope, and that dependency on government handouts is not the way to run an independent business. What you have is governments using environmental reasons to justify taking this or that action. Ie, "the environment" as envisaged by academia and politics, is a political football. Re the story, and how much money the farmer was getting, I don't know. I simply asked why he didn't have cows out, and he explained about the payments, orchids, etc.
- flir 3y agoI'd sell the land to someone who didn't care about orchids, and keep the sheds for milk production. I mean, who wouldn't take extra money? Oh! Or keep cows on the land and in sheds. I bet that returns more money than set aside does.