Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! " You're just nit picking, Australia is a massive country with huge potential. Also of course we can now use our influence as consumers and push for any changes in animal welfare we see fit. Europe has long had an appalling animal welfare track record including live exports, bull fighting, foie Gras, goat throwing etc etc so let's have some balance to the discussion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! You're just nit picking, Australia is a massive country with huge potential. Also of course we can now use our influence as consumers and push for any changes in animal welfare we see fit. Europe has long had an appalling animal welfare track record including live exports, bull fighting, foie Gras, goat throwing etc etc so let's have some balance to the discussion. " yer but Europe get a free pass from the remainers on here so it doesn’t count lpl | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! You're just nit picking, Australia is a massive country with huge potential. Also of course we can now use our influence as consumers and push for any changes in animal welfare we see fit. Europe has long had an appalling animal welfare track record including live exports, bull fighting, foie Gras, goat throwing etc etc so let's have some balance to the discussion. yer but Europe get a free pass from the remainers on here so it doesn’t count lpl" It's staggering the mental gymnastics remainers display on this sort of thing. Even the European Court of Auditors says of animal welfare standards "economic interests often trump welfare rules", their reports are devastating. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I live and work in a farming community. The upland farmers (who mostly didn’t vote for Brexit) are devastated that the government hasn’t cared about their interests. Even many of the (generally) Tory voting, lowland farmers are angry." Where that's the case, that's mostly to do with a reduction of the absurd subsidies that will eventually happen. For workers it's great news as agricultural wages are going up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. " Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb " Cap and tariff damage? Taxpayers and consumers pay for all this nonsense, it's not free you know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I live and work in a farming community. The upland farmers (who mostly didn’t vote for Brexit) are devastated that the government hasn’t cared about their interests. Even many of the (generally) Tory voting, lowland farmers are angry." Didnt care for their interests? Well I for one I'm shocked. That doesn't sound like them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to remember certain people on here saying no country is going to want to do a trade deal with the UK at all. It now appears they are complaining that the trade deal which they said we wouldn't get at all is not worth that much! " You must be new around here. Our bunch of remainers are entirely predictable with their negative responses to every bit of good news. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just to shove in my 2pence worth... With all the arguments against a trade deal with a country on the other side of the planet, is hauling goods back and forth 9,500 miles instead of 100 300? Miles a tad unfriendly to environment? " It's the usual echo chamber. It's pointless even arguing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. " America population 331 million "potential consumers" Australia population 25.7 million "potential consumers" Hardly a comparison is it unless you're talking about land mass,ie. Rock and soil but the last time I checked we don't trade with landmass but people "consumers" You also could do with reading the deal because those who it will affect don't seem too happy with it and the consequences it may have on our own farming industry. I suppose it's understandable that people like yourself who's desperate to champion anything as a Brexit Benefit have jumped on this bandwagon but I'll leave the analysis to those who actually understand the deal and it's implications as to whether it's a Brexit Bonus or not   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""- 64% believe British farmers should compete on an equal basis with foreign imports of the same standards; 52% believe they should not be denied access to Australian farming goods produced at a lower price - 63% would support a trade deal with Australia even if it means that increased competition would reduce profits for British farmers and some might go out of business; just 20% would prefer to block a deal to prevent British farmers having more competition - 52% would opt for Australian beef as an alternative to British beef, just 24% would opt for EU beef" " As long as its produced to the same standard and/ or is properly labelled then it's not an issue to me. What uk farmers want is to remove the red tractor assurance bollocks that is called tape form filling crap, itcosts a lot of money for no purpose, 90% is covered by legal requirements etc but the form filling is bonkers. For instance you have to record if you worm the farm dog or cat, I have to have my scheme number on my trailers if I deliver to central store or mill but if I deliver someone else's or it goes in an artic I dont, it doesnt help traceability as every load has a form with my number plus all the details on it and wont be tipped. Its just typical jobsworths thinking pune rules every year to keep their own jobs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb Cap and tariff damage? Taxpayers and consumers pay for all this nonsense, it's not free you know. " You do realise that you have just exposed your ignorance of why farmers are upset don’t you… Let me explain… I’ll keep it simple for you…. at the moment there is a CAP on the amount of beef and lamb that Australia can export to the UK…. In this deal that cap actually rises over the next 15 years…. It was supposed to stop dumping but because that level is so high..(higher than the highest point of uk Australia trade back to just after world war 2) it is not a deterrent…. Also there is a TARIFF in place on Australian beef and lamb coming into the UK… ( it’s actually set under WTO rules) it’s basically in there to protect domestic farming and prevent other countries from dumping…. Tariff disappears…. Cheaper beef and lamb can come in.. and you can bring much more of it in because you also raised the CAP! That is why people at DEFRA, as well as the NFU and farmers are absolutely fuming because you basically threw farmers under the bus with little protection in this grand trade deal….. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really can't tell if JuliaChris believes the stuff they spout or if they're trolling all the time." The Red Arrows thread implies it's all trolling. But we could be just seeing a remarkable level of indoctrination. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! " I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb Cap and tariff damage? Taxpayers and consumers pay for all this nonsense, it's not free you know. You do realise that you have just exposed your ignorance of why farmers are upset don’t you… Let me explain… I’ll keep it simple for you…. at the moment there is a CAP on the amount of beef and lamb that Australia can export to the UK…. In this deal that cap actually rises over the next 15 years…. It was supposed to stop dumping but because that level is so high..(higher than the highest point of uk Australia trade back to just after world war 2) it is not a deterrent…. Also there is a TARIFF in place on Australian beef and lamb coming into the UK… ( it’s actually set under WTO rules) it’s basically in there to protect domestic farming and prevent other countries from dumping…. Tariff disappears…. Cheaper beef and lamb can come in.. and you can bring much more of it in because you also raised the CAP! That is why people at DEFRA, as well as the NFU and farmers are absolutely fuming because you basically threw farmers under the bus with little protection in this grand trade deal….." No 1) a poster above has already quoted figures showing you that UK farmers are NOT upset by Australia or any fair competition 2) I specifically said consumers and taxpayers lost out due to tariffs and caps. It’s all the anticompetitive regulations from Brussels that condemns some of the poorest workers in the world to dire poverty. We are the new champions of tariff free trade within the new Empire. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb Cap and tariff damage? Taxpayers and consumers pay for all this nonsense, it's not free you know. You do realise that you have just exposed your ignorance of why farmers are upset don’t you… Let me explain… I’ll keep it simple for you…. at the moment there is a CAP on the amount of beef and lamb that Australia can export to the UK…. In this deal that cap actually rises over the next 15 years…. It was supposed to stop dumping but because that level is so high..(higher than the highest point of uk Australia trade back to just after world war 2) it is not a deterrent…. Also there is a TARIFF in place on Australian beef and lamb coming into the UK… ( it’s actually set under WTO rules) it’s basically in there to protect domestic farming and prevent other countries from dumping…. Tariff disappears…. Cheaper beef and lamb can come in.. and you can bring much more of it in because you also raised the CAP! That is why people at DEFRA, as well as the NFU and farmers are absolutely fuming because you basically threw farmers under the bus with little protection in this grand trade deal….." Where do you get your info from are you actually in the ag industry, or are you just jumping on press reports ? Imports will only come in if uk prices are higher than their other markets, they arent currently but obviously that can change but might not. Ask most farmers and they would be far more concerned about the power of the UK supermarkets and the lies spread by the anti meat brigade than meat from Oz | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Contributes 0.02% to GDP, not really the figure to get too excited about it. " As much as that?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb Cap and tariff damage? Taxpayers and consumers pay for all this nonsense, it's not free you know. You do realise that you have just exposed your ignorance of why farmers are upset don’t you… Let me explain… I’ll keep it simple for you…. at the moment there is a CAP on the amount of beef and lamb that Australia can export to the UK…. In this deal that cap actually rises over the next 15 years…. It was supposed to stop dumping but because that level is so high..(higher than the highest point of uk Australia trade back to just after world war 2) it is not a deterrent…. Also there is a TARIFF in place on Australian beef and lamb coming into the UK… ( it’s actually set under WTO rules) it’s basically in there to protect domestic farming and prevent other countries from dumping…. Tariff disappears…. Cheaper beef and lamb can come in.. and you can bring much more of it in because you also raised the CAP! That is why people at DEFRA, as well as the NFU and farmers are absolutely fuming because you basically threw farmers under the bus with little protection in this grand trade deal….. Where do you get your info from are you actually in the ag industry, or are you just jumping on press reports ? Imports will only come in if uk prices are higher than their other markets, they arent currently but obviously that can change but might not. Ask most farmers and they would be far more concerned about the power of the UK supermarkets and the lies spread by the anti meat brigade than meat from Oz " It’s one of those things where government announced deal in big shiny lights… people asked.. well.. details… and then the government had to put out the 15 year cap deal press release because of angry farmers… A big reason as to why markets are not flooded with imports in general is that under WTO rules… again WTO and not Brussels was implying… beef has a 48% tariff on it and lamb has an 80% tariff Remove those tariffs and increase the amount of into the country means a lot of farmers in trouble…. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb Cap and tariff damage? Taxpayers and consumers pay for all this nonsense, it's not free you know. You do realise that you have just exposed your ignorance of why farmers are upset don’t you… Let me explain… I’ll keep it simple for you…. at the moment there is a CAP on the amount of beef and lamb that Australia can export to the UK…. In this deal that cap actually rises over the next 15 years…. It was supposed to stop dumping but because that level is so high..(higher than the highest point of uk Australia trade back to just after world war 2) it is not a deterrent…. Also there is a TARIFF in place on Australian beef and lamb coming into the UK… ( it’s actually set under WTO rules) it’s basically in there to protect domestic farming and prevent other countries from dumping…. Tariff disappears…. Cheaper beef and lamb can come in.. and you can bring much more of it in because you also raised the CAP! That is why people at DEFRA, as well as the NFU and farmers are absolutely fuming because you basically threw farmers under the bus with little protection in this grand trade deal….. Where do you get your info from are you actually in the ag industry, or are you just jumping on press reports ? Imports will only come in if uk prices are higher than their other markets, they arent currently but obviously that can change but might not. Ask most farmers and they would be far more concerned about the power of the UK supermarkets and the lies spread by the anti meat brigade than meat from Oz It’s one of those things where government announced deal in big shiny lights… people asked.. well.. details… and then the government had to put out the 15 year cap deal press release because of angry farmers… A big reason as to why markets are not flooded with imports in general is that under WTO rules… again WTO and not Brussels was implying… beef has a 48% tariff on it and lamb has an 80% tariff Remove those tariffs and increase the amount of into the country means a lot of farmers in trouble…." No, it means more competition which is better for the consumer. Marcus Rashford’s generosity with other taxpayers money will cost us all a little less as well. Result. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb Cap and tariff damage? Taxpayers and consumers pay for all this nonsense, it's not free you know. You do realise that you have just exposed your ignorance of why farmers are upset don’t you… Let me explain… I’ll keep it simple for you…. at the moment there is a CAP on the amount of beef and lamb that Australia can export to the UK…. In this deal that cap actually rises over the next 15 years…. It was supposed to stop dumping but because that level is so high..(higher than the highest point of uk Australia trade back to just after world war 2) it is not a deterrent…. Also there is a TARIFF in place on Australian beef and lamb coming into the UK… ( it’s actually set under WTO rules) it’s basically in there to protect domestic farming and prevent other countries from dumping…. Tariff disappears…. Cheaper beef and lamb can come in.. and you can bring much more of it in because you also raised the CAP! That is why people at DEFRA, as well as the NFU and farmers are absolutely fuming because you basically threw farmers under the bus with little protection in this grand trade deal….. Where do you get your info from are you actually in the ag industry, or are you just jumping on press reports ? Imports will only come in if uk prices are higher than their other markets, they arent currently but obviously that can change but might not. Ask most farmers and they would be far more concerned about the power of the UK supermarkets and the lies spread by the anti meat brigade than meat from Oz It’s one of those things where government announced deal in big shiny lights… people asked.. well.. details… and then the government had to put out the 15 year cap deal press release because of angry farmers… A big reason as to why markets are not flooded with imports in general is that under WTO rules… again WTO and not Brussels was implying… beef has a 48% tariff on it and lamb has an 80% tariff Remove those tariffs and increase the amount of into the country means a lot of farmers in trouble…. No, it means more competition which is better for the consumer. Marcus Rashford’s generosity with other taxpayers money will cost us all a little less as well. Result. " 0.02 % of GDP? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb Cap and tariff damage? Taxpayers and consumers pay for all this nonsense, it's not free you know. You do realise that you have just exposed your ignorance of why farmers are upset don’t you… Let me explain… I’ll keep it simple for you…. at the moment there is a CAP on the amount of beef and lamb that Australia can export to the UK…. In this deal that cap actually rises over the next 15 years…. It was supposed to stop dumping but because that level is so high..(higher than the highest point of uk Australia trade back to just after world war 2) it is not a deterrent…. Also there is a TARIFF in place on Australian beef and lamb coming into the UK… ( it’s actually set under WTO rules) it’s basically in there to protect domestic farming and prevent other countries from dumping…. Tariff disappears…. Cheaper beef and lamb can come in.. and you can bring much more of it in because you also raised the CAP! That is why people at DEFRA, as well as the NFU and farmers are absolutely fuming because you basically threw farmers under the bus with little protection in this grand trade deal….. Where do you get your info from are you actually in the ag industry, or are you just jumping on press reports ? Imports will only come in if uk prices are higher than their other markets, they arent currently but obviously that can change but might not. Ask most farmers and they would be far more concerned about the power of the UK supermarkets and the lies spread by the anti meat brigade than meat from Oz It’s one of those things where government announced deal in big shiny lights… people asked.. well.. details… and then the government had to put out the 15 year cap deal press release because of angry farmers… A big reason as to why markets are not flooded with imports in general is that under WTO rules… again WTO and not Brussels was implying… beef has a 48% tariff on it and lamb has an 80% tariff Remove those tariffs and increase the amount of into the country means a lot of farmers in trouble…. No, it means more competition which is better for the consumer. Marcus Rashford’s generosity with other taxpayers money will cost us all a little less as well. Result. 0.02 % of GDP? "GDP is not a measure of food consumption believe it or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really can't tell if JuliaChris believes the stuff they spout or if they're trolling all the time. The Red Arrows thread implies it's all trolling. But we could be just seeing a remarkable level of indoctrination." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! " Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to remember certain people on here saying no country is going to want to do a trade deal with the UK at all. It now appears they are complaining that the trade deal which they said we wouldn't get at all is not worth that much! " I seem to remember leavers saying it will be better for the UK 0.02 % better for the Aussie deal Brexit: UK meat industry fears losing up to 50% of exports https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-meat-exports-trade-eu-b1822292.html%3famp | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb Cap and tariff damage? Taxpayers and consumers pay for all this nonsense, it's not free you know. You do realise that you have just exposed your ignorance of why farmers are upset don’t you… Let me explain… I’ll keep it simple for you…. at the moment there is a CAP on the amount of beef and lamb that Australia can export to the UK…. In this deal that cap actually rises over the next 15 years…. It was supposed to stop dumping but because that level is so high..(higher than the highest point of uk Australia trade back to just after world war 2) it is not a deterrent…. Also there is a TARIFF in place on Australian beef and lamb coming into the UK… ( it’s actually set under WTO rules) it’s basically in there to protect domestic farming and prevent other countries from dumping…. Tariff disappears…. Cheaper beef and lamb can come in.. and you can bring much more of it in because you also raised the CAP! That is why people at DEFRA, as well as the NFU and farmers are absolutely fuming because you basically threw farmers under the bus with little protection in this grand trade deal….. Where do you get your info from are you actually in the ag industry, or are you just jumping on press reports ? Imports will only come in if uk prices are higher than their other markets, they arent currently but obviously that can change but might not. Ask most farmers and they would be far more concerned about the power of the UK supermarkets and the lies spread by the anti meat brigade than meat from Oz It’s one of those things where government announced deal in big shiny lights… people asked.. well.. details… and then the government had to put out the 15 year cap deal press release because of angry farmers… A big reason as to why markets are not flooded with imports in general is that under WTO rules… again WTO and not Brussels was implying… beef has a 48% tariff on it and lamb has an 80% tariff Remove those tariffs and increase the amount of into the country means a lot of farmers in trouble…." Did you actually read what I put Oz market prices are above the uk ones, that means they are getting more for their animals than we are, they arent going to sell stuff here when they can get more where they currently sell into, it's very basic and simple economics, dont listen to media bollocks they are just stirring trouble, farmers call the nfu " no fucking use" they are so out of touch with real farmers few bother to belong apart from the big arable boys who have been members for generations, you wont get many upland farmers among their members. If Oz wanted to increase production it to will take several years, first of all they need the breeding stock which would mean at least 9 months from today for the first calves to be born then a minimum of 23 months till they calves then another 15 to 30 months before those cattle are fat depending on which system, most likely if they want to selling quality it would be 30 months, cheaper manufacturing crap 15 months. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. " The dipping of sheep in OP's was compulsory for scab not fly strike . Australia only use gm for oil seed and sunflowers. The uk imports hundreds of thousand of tonnes of gm soya to feed animals and guess what, if you eat anything with soya in it you have consumed it too, it's impossible to differentiate once processed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb Cap and tariff damage? Taxpayers and consumers pay for all this nonsense, it's not free you know. You do realise that you have just exposed your ignorance of why farmers are upset don’t you… Let me explain… I’ll keep it simple for you…. at the moment there is a CAP on the amount of beef and lamb that Australia can export to the UK…. In this deal that cap actually rises over the next 15 years…. It was supposed to stop dumping but because that level is so high..(higher than the highest point of uk Australia trade back to just after world war 2) it is not a deterrent…. Also there is a TARIFF in place on Australian beef and lamb coming into the UK… ( it’s actually set under WTO rules) it’s basically in there to protect domestic farming and prevent other countries from dumping…. Tariff disappears…. Cheaper beef and lamb can come in.. and you can bring much more of it in because you also raised the CAP! That is why people at DEFRA, as well as the NFU and farmers are absolutely fuming because you basically threw farmers under the bus with little protection in this grand trade deal….. Where do you get your info from are you actually in the ag industry, or are you just jumping on press reports ? Imports will only come in if uk prices are higher than their other markets, they arent currently but obviously that can change but might not. Ask most farmers and they would be far more concerned about the power of the UK supermarkets and the lies spread by the anti meat brigade than meat from Oz It’s one of those things where government announced deal in big shiny lights… people asked.. well.. details… and then the government had to put out the 15 year cap deal press release because of angry farmers… A big reason as to why markets are not flooded with imports in general is that under WTO rules… again WTO and not Brussels was implying… beef has a 48% tariff on it and lamb has an 80% tariff Remove those tariffs and increase the amount of into the country means a lot of farmers in trouble…. Did you actually read what I put Oz market prices are above the uk ones, that means they are getting more for their animals than we are, they arent going to sell stuff here when they can get more where they currently sell into, it's very basic and simple economics, dont listen to media bollocks they are just stirring trouble, farmers call the nfu " no fucking use" they are so out of touch with real farmers few bother to belong apart from the big arable boys who have been members for generations, you wont get many upland farmers among their members. If Oz wanted to increase production it to will take several years, first of all they need the breeding stock which would mean at least 9 months from today for the first calves to be born then a minimum of 23 months till they calves then another 15 to 30 months before those cattle are fat depending on which system, most likely if they want to selling quality it would be 30 months, cheaper manufacturing crap 15 months." 0.02 % of GDP, pitiful | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to remember certain people on here saying no country is going to want to do a trade deal with the UK at all. It now appears they are complaining that the trade deal which they said we wouldn't get at all is not worth that much! I seem to remember leavers saying it will be better for the UK 0.02 % better for the Aussie deal Brexit: UK meat industry fears losing up to 50% of exports https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-meat-exports-trade-eu-b1822292.html%3famp" That's nothing to do with price | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to remember certain people on here saying no country is going to want to do a trade deal with the UK at all. It now appears they are complaining that the trade deal which they said we wouldn't get at all is not worth that much! I seem to remember leavers saying it will be better for the UK 0.02 % better for the Aussie deal Brexit: UK meat industry fears losing up to 50% of exports https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-meat-exports-trade-eu-b1822292.html%3famp That's nothing to do with price " Nioe but its everything to do With not being better for the UK | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. The dipping of sheep in OP's was compulsory for scab not fly strike . Australia only use gm for oil seed and sunflowers. The uk imports hundreds of thousand of tonnes of gm soya to feed animals and guess what, if you eat anything with soya in it you have consumed it too, it's impossible to differentiate once processed " Did I say dipping was for fly strike ??? Please show me where? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Btw typo in my second above post . Should have said growth hormone GH treated not GM . My apologies . " Unacceptable | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. " Ok, if you want to go down the road of the family farm. I worked on a farm for 20 years, 18 of which were as a shepherd averaging a flock of 800 ewes, plus ewe lambs and not forgetting the most important 20+ rams. It wasn't my farm, unfortunately but I do know all about farming practices. I also participated in dipping so are very much know about organo phosphorus dips which were quite rightly banned back in the late 80's in the UK. Fly strike in the UK is bad enough in the outback it must be horrific. It is worth noting, although not lessening the effect, the practice you speak of is used on merino sheep, used for wool production, a premium wool. The message being stop buying premium jumpers. Nothing to do with meat production because as I said earlier, it's not worth the cost. In my time farming I've also been a relief herdsmen, stockman and arable, so a good all round knowledge of the subject, unlike the majority on here who only see a headline! I've many friends who still farm and work on farms, so again reasonably current. As others have pointed out, the big factor in most of this are the supermarkets who have driven prices down over the years. As I've said I've already discussed the hormone/antibiotics on a previous thread and not wasting time writing it out again. I also mentioned reading the agreement, nowhere does it say about undercutting our food standards! Why should we undercut something we have taken years to build? Our standards and practices have always been higher than those in the EU and very often instigated long before they made it law. So yes I can talk from experience and knowledge, rather than reading a headline! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. The dipping of sheep in OP's was compulsory for scab not fly strike . Australia only use gm for oil seed and sunflowers. The uk imports hundreds of thousand of tonnes of gm soya to feed animals and guess what, if you eat anything with soya in it you have consumed it too, it's impossible to differentiate once processed Did I say dipping was for fly strike ??? Please show me where? " You didn't nor did I say you did but those that dont know much about sheep would assume it was how we controlled fly strike, different dips were used for flies but mostly its pour on these days( not that I've kept any for over 20 years)I've seen plenty on sheep backs and belly not just around the tail, it's not pleasant. As for your other point about half of Oz beef is treated with growth hormones and currently its import is banned here, I've not seen anything to suggest that will change and it's the poorer dairy cross cattle that would normally be treated, I'm not sure that is the meat they would send here anyway, labelling is the key, do you really think the supermarkets will sell it here uk beef producers would have a field day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb Cap and tariff damage? Taxpayers and consumers pay for all this nonsense, it's not free you know. You do realise that you have just exposed your ignorance of why farmers are upset don’t you… Let me explain… I’ll keep it simple for you…. at the moment there is a CAP on the amount of beef and lamb that Australia can export to the UK…. In this deal that cap actually rises over the next 15 years…. It was supposed to stop dumping but because that level is so high..(higher than the highest point of uk Australia trade back to just after world war 2) it is not a deterrent…. Also there is a TARIFF in place on Australian beef and lamb coming into the UK… ( it’s actually set under WTO rules) it’s basically in there to protect domestic farming and prevent other countries from dumping…. Tariff disappears…. Cheaper beef and lamb can come in.. and you can bring much more of it in because you also raised the CAP! That is why people at DEFRA, as well as the NFU and farmers are absolutely fuming because you basically threw farmers under the bus with little protection in this grand trade deal….. Where do you get your info from are you actually in the ag industry, or are you just jumping on press reports ? Imports will only come in if uk prices are higher than their other markets, they arent currently but obviously that can change but might not. Ask most farmers and they would be far more concerned about the power of the UK supermarkets and the lies spread by the anti meat brigade than meat from Oz It’s one of those things where government announced deal in big shiny lights… people asked.. well.. details… and then the government had to put out the 15 year cap deal press release because of angry farmers… A big reason as to why markets are not flooded with imports in general is that under WTO rules… again WTO and not Brussels was implying… beef has a 48% tariff on it and lamb has an 80% tariff Remove those tariffs and increase the amount of into the country means a lot of farmers in trouble…." will it mean cheaper meat tho lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb Cap and tariff damage? Taxpayers and consumers pay for all this nonsense, it's not free you know. You do realise that you have just exposed your ignorance of why farmers are upset don’t you… Let me explain… I’ll keep it simple for you…. at the moment there is a CAP on the amount of beef and lamb that Australia can export to the UK…. In this deal that cap actually rises over the next 15 years…. It was supposed to stop dumping but because that level is so high..(higher than the highest point of uk Australia trade back to just after world war 2) it is not a deterrent…. Also there is a TARIFF in place on Australian beef and lamb coming into the UK… ( it’s actually set under WTO rules) it’s basically in there to protect domestic farming and prevent other countries from dumping…. Tariff disappears…. Cheaper beef and lamb can come in.. and you can bring much more of it in because you also raised the CAP! That is why people at DEFRA, as well as the NFU and farmers are absolutely fuming because you basically threw farmers under the bus with little protection in this grand trade deal….. Where do you get your info from are you actually in the ag industry, or are you just jumping on press reports ? Imports will only come in if uk prices are higher than their other markets, they arent currently but obviously that can change but might not. Ask most farmers and they would be far more concerned about the power of the UK supermarkets and the lies spread by the anti meat brigade than meat from Oz It’s one of those things where government announced deal in big shiny lights… people asked.. well.. details… and then the government had to put out the 15 year cap deal press release because of angry farmers… A big reason as to why markets are not flooded with imports in general is that under WTO rules… again WTO and not Brussels was implying… beef has a 48% tariff on it and lamb has an 80% tariff Remove those tariffs and increase the amount of into the country means a lot of farmers in trouble….will it mean cheaper meat tho lol" Probably not Fuel from Australia will cost Far more than fuel from the EU So supermarkets will keep the prices high | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb Cap and tariff damage? Taxpayers and consumers pay for all this nonsense, it's not free you know. You do realise that you have just exposed your ignorance of why farmers are upset don’t you… Let me explain… I’ll keep it simple for you…. at the moment there is a CAP on the amount of beef and lamb that Australia can export to the UK…. In this deal that cap actually rises over the next 15 years…. It was supposed to stop dumping but because that level is so high..(higher than the highest point of uk Australia trade back to just after world war 2) it is not a deterrent…. Also there is a TARIFF in place on Australian beef and lamb coming into the UK… ( it’s actually set under WTO rules) it’s basically in there to protect domestic farming and prevent other countries from dumping…. Tariff disappears…. Cheaper beef and lamb can come in.. and you can bring much more of it in because you also raised the CAP! That is why people at DEFRA, as well as the NFU and farmers are absolutely fuming because you basically threw farmers under the bus with little protection in this grand trade deal….. Where do you get your info from are you actually in the ag industry, or are you just jumping on press reports ? Imports will only come in if uk prices are higher than their other markets, they arent currently but obviously that can change but might not. Ask most farmers and they would be far more concerned about the power of the UK supermarkets and the lies spread by the anti meat brigade than meat from Oz It’s one of those things where government announced deal in big shiny lights… people asked.. well.. details… and then the government had to put out the 15 year cap deal press release because of angry farmers… A big reason as to why markets are not flooded with imports in general is that under WTO rules… again WTO and not Brussels was implying… beef has a 48% tariff on it and lamb has an 80% tariff Remove those tariffs and increase the amount of into the country means a lot of farmers in trouble….will it mean cheaper meat tho lol Probably not Fuel from Australia will cost Far more than fuel from the EU So supermarkets will keep the prices high" so if the price isn’t going to be lower and the quality no better how does this meat sell then ???? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb Cap and tariff damage? Taxpayers and consumers pay for all this nonsense, it's not free you know. You do realise that you have just exposed your ignorance of why farmers are upset don’t you… Let me explain… I’ll keep it simple for you…. at the moment there is a CAP on the amount of beef and lamb that Australia can export to the UK…. In this deal that cap actually rises over the next 15 years…. It was supposed to stop dumping but because that level is so high..(higher than the highest point of uk Australia trade back to just after world war 2) it is not a deterrent…. Also there is a TARIFF in place on Australian beef and lamb coming into the UK… ( it’s actually set under WTO rules) it’s basically in there to protect domestic farming and prevent other countries from dumping…. Tariff disappears…. Cheaper beef and lamb can come in.. and you can bring much more of it in because you also raised the CAP! That is why people at DEFRA, as well as the NFU and farmers are absolutely fuming because you basically threw farmers under the bus with little protection in this grand trade deal….. Where do you get your info from are you actually in the ag industry, or are you just jumping on press reports ? Imports will only come in if uk prices are higher than their other markets, they arent currently but obviously that can change but might not. Ask most farmers and they would be far more concerned about the power of the UK supermarkets and the lies spread by the anti meat brigade than meat from Oz It’s one of those things where government announced deal in big shiny lights… people asked.. well.. details… and then the government had to put out the 15 year cap deal press release because of angry farmers… A big reason as to why markets are not flooded with imports in general is that under WTO rules… again WTO and not Brussels was implying… beef has a 48% tariff on it and lamb has an 80% tariff Remove those tariffs and increase the amount of into the country means a lot of farmers in trouble….will it mean cheaper meat tho lol Probably not Fuel from Australia will cost Far more than fuel from the EU So supermarkets will keep the prices highso if the price isn’t going to be lower and the quality no better how does this meat sell then ????" I dont know Maybe you need to ask the experts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb Cap and tariff damage? Taxpayers and consumers pay for all this nonsense, it's not free you know. You do realise that you have just exposed your ignorance of why farmers are upset don’t you… Let me explain… I’ll keep it simple for you…. at the moment there is a CAP on the amount of beef and lamb that Australia can export to the UK…. In this deal that cap actually rises over the next 15 years…. It was supposed to stop dumping but because that level is so high..(higher than the highest point of uk Australia trade back to just after world war 2) it is not a deterrent…. Also there is a TARIFF in place on Australian beef and lamb coming into the UK… ( it’s actually set under WTO rules) it’s basically in there to protect domestic farming and prevent other countries from dumping…. Tariff disappears…. Cheaper beef and lamb can come in.. and you can bring much more of it in because you also raised the CAP! That is why people at DEFRA, as well as the NFU and farmers are absolutely fuming because you basically threw farmers under the bus with little protection in this grand trade deal….. Where do you get your info from are you actually in the ag industry, or are you just jumping on press reports ? Imports will only come in if uk prices are higher than their other markets, they arent currently but obviously that can change but might not. Ask most farmers and they would be far more concerned about the power of the UK supermarkets and the lies spread by the anti meat brigade than meat from Oz It’s one of those things where government announced deal in big shiny lights… people asked.. well.. details… and then the government had to put out the 15 year cap deal press release because of angry farmers… A big reason as to why markets are not flooded with imports in general is that under WTO rules… again WTO and not Brussels was implying… beef has a 48% tariff on it and lamb has an 80% tariff Remove those tariffs and increase the amount of into the country means a lot of farmers in trouble….will it mean cheaper meat tho lol Probably not Fuel from Australia will cost Far more than fuel from the EU So supermarkets will keep the prices highso if the price isn’t going to be lower and the quality no better how does this meat sell then ???? I dont know Maybe you need to ask the experts " it won’t if it can’t compete on price or quality it’s not going to sell over British beef or lamb we had same discussions about the USA chicken | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. The dipping of sheep in OP's was compulsory for scab not fly strike . Australia only use gm for oil seed and sunflowers. The uk imports hundreds of thousand of tonnes of gm soya to feed animals and guess what, if you eat anything with soya in it you have consumed it too, it's impossible to differentiate once processed Did I say dipping was for fly strike ??? Please show me where? You didn't nor did I say you did but those that dont know much about sheep would assume it was how we controlled fly strike, different dips were used for flies but mostly its pour on these days( not that I've kept any for over 20 years)I've seen plenty on sheep backs and belly not just around the tail, it's not pleasant. As for your other point about half of Oz beef is treated with growth hormones and currently its import is banned here, I've not seen anything to suggest that will change and it's the poorer dairy cross cattle that would normally be treated, I'm not sure that is the meat they would send here anyway, labelling is the key, do you really think the supermarkets will sell it here uk beef producers would have a field day." I think you'll find the actual figure for gh treated beef is around 20% of beef production in Australia, coming down because of consumer pressure. A big article about it a year or two ago. I can see it being banned over there too in the next few years. Just a question for those who keep on about cheaper beef and lamb. Do you prefer fresh or frozen meat? Therein lies your answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. The dipping of sheep in OP's was compulsory for scab not fly strike . Australia only use gm for oil seed and sunflowers. The uk imports hundreds of thousand of tonnes of gm soya to feed animals and guess what, if you eat anything with soya in it you have consumed it too, it's impossible to differentiate once processed Did I say dipping was for fly strike ??? Please show me where? You didn't nor did I say you did but those that dont know much about sheep would assume it was how we controlled fly strike, different dips were used for flies but mostly its pour on these days( not that I've kept any for over 20 years)I've seen plenty on sheep backs and belly not just around the tail, it's not pleasant. As for your other point about half of Oz beef is treated with growth hormones and currently its import is banned here, I've not seen anything to suggest that will change and it's the poorer dairy cross cattle that would normally be treated, I'm not sure that is the meat they would send here anyway, labelling is the key, do you really think the supermarkets will sell it here uk beef producers would have a field day. I think you'll find the actual figure for gh treated beef is around 20% of beef production in Australia, coming down because of consumer pressure. A big article about it a year or two ago. I can see it being banned over there too in the next few years. Just a question for those who keep on about cheaper beef and lamb. Do you prefer fresh or frozen meat? Therein lies your answer." Is frozen leave & fresh remain Or is it t'other way round ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a fantastic deal with a country nearly as big as the United States. Great for consumers and producers. I'm sure we can all agree its great news and only possible because of Brexit. Even the uk government own figures admit it will increase the uk trade figures with Australia from 0.001% of GDP to 0.002% of GDP….. And then we have the cap and tariff damage it will do to uk farming… especially beef and lamb Cap and tariff damage? Taxpayers and consumers pay for all this nonsense, it's not free you know. You do realise that you have just exposed your ignorance of why farmers are upset don’t you… Let me explain… I’ll keep it simple for you…. at the moment there is a CAP on the amount of beef and lamb that Australia can export to the UK…. In this deal that cap actually rises over the next 15 years…. It was supposed to stop dumping but because that level is so high..(higher than the highest point of uk Australia trade back to just after world war 2) it is not a deterrent…. Also there is a TARIFF in place on Australian beef and lamb coming into the UK… ( it’s actually set under WTO rules) it’s basically in there to protect domestic farming and prevent other countries from dumping…. Tariff disappears…. Cheaper beef and lamb can come in.. and you can bring much more of it in because you also raised the CAP! That is why people at DEFRA, as well as the NFU and farmers are absolutely fuming because you basically threw farmers under the bus with little protection in this grand trade deal….. Where do you get your info from are you actually in the ag industry, or are you just jumping on press reports ? Imports will only come in if uk prices are higher than their other markets, they arent currently but obviously that can change but might not. Ask most farmers and they would be far more concerned about the power of the UK supermarkets and the lies spread by the anti meat brigade than meat from Oz It’s one of those things where government announced deal in big shiny lights… people asked.. well.. details… and then the government had to put out the 15 year cap deal press release because of angry farmers… A big reason as to why markets are not flooded with imports in general is that under WTO rules… again WTO and not Brussels was implying… beef has a 48% tariff on it and lamb has an 80% tariff Remove those tariffs and increase the amount of into the country means a lot of farmers in trouble….will it mean cheaper meat tho lol Probably not Fuel from Australia will cost Far more than fuel from the EU So supermarkets will keep the prices high" Why quote meat from the EU and compare fuel costs. A lot of beef products, come from countries like Argentina and south America anyway. So for a true comparison you would need to use the fuel costs from there. Fresh beef will come from NI and the Republic. While the Republic is EU it's not a comparison. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. The dipping of sheep in OP's was compulsory for scab not fly strike . Australia only use gm for oil seed and sunflowers. The uk imports hundreds of thousand of tonnes of gm soya to feed animals and guess what, if you eat anything with soya in it you have consumed it too, it's impossible to differentiate once processed Did I say dipping was for fly strike ??? Please show me where? You didn't nor did I say you did but those that dont know much about sheep would assume it was how we controlled fly strike, different dips were used for flies but mostly its pour on these days( not that I've kept any for over 20 years)I've seen plenty on sheep backs and belly not just around the tail, it's not pleasant. As for your other point about half of Oz beef is treated with growth hormones and currently its import is banned here, I've not seen anything to suggest that will change and it's the poorer dairy cross cattle that would normally be treated, I'm not sure that is the meat they would send here anyway, labelling is the key, do you really think the supermarkets will sell it here uk beef producers would have a field day. I think you'll find the actual figure for gh treated beef is around 20% of beef production in Australia, coming down because of consumer pressure. A big article about it a year or two ago. I can see it being banned over there too in the next few years. Just a question for those who keep on about cheaper beef and lamb. Do you prefer fresh or frozen meat? Therein lies your answer. Is frozen leave & fresh remain Or is it t'other way round ?" Why would it make a difference? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. The dipping of sheep in OP's was compulsory for scab not fly strike . Australia only use gm for oil seed and sunflowers. The uk imports hundreds of thousand of tonnes of gm soya to feed animals and guess what, if you eat anything with soya in it you have consumed it too, it's impossible to differentiate once processed Did I say dipping was for fly strike ??? Please show me where? You didn't nor did I say you did but those that dont know much about sheep would assume it was how we controlled fly strike, different dips were used for flies but mostly its pour on these days( not that I've kept any for over 20 years)I've seen plenty on sheep backs and belly not just around the tail, it's not pleasant. As for your other point about half of Oz beef is treated with growth hormones and currently its import is banned here, I've not seen anything to suggest that will change and it's the poorer dairy cross cattle that would normally be treated, I'm not sure that is the meat they would send here anyway, labelling is the key, do you really think the supermarkets will sell it here uk beef producers would have a field day. I think you'll find the actual figure for gh treated beef is around 20% of beef production in Australia, coming down because of consumer pressure. A big article about it a year or two ago. I can see it being banned over there too in the next few years. Just a question for those who keep on about cheaper beef and lamb. Do you prefer fresh or frozen meat? Therein lies your answer. Is frozen leave & fresh remain Or is it t'other way round ? Why would it make a difference? " But there you go again bringing a thread down to it's lowest denominator. Complete waste of time! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. The dipping of sheep in OP's was compulsory for scab not fly strike . Australia only use gm for oil seed and sunflowers. The uk imports hundreds of thousand of tonnes of gm soya to feed animals and guess what, if you eat anything with soya in it you have consumed it too, it's impossible to differentiate once processed Did I say dipping was for fly strike ??? Please show me where? You didn't nor did I say you did but those that dont know much about sheep would assume it was how we controlled fly strike, different dips were used for flies but mostly its pour on these days( not that I've kept any for over 20 years)I've seen plenty on sheep backs and belly not just around the tail, it's not pleasant. As for your other point about half of Oz beef is treated with growth hormones and currently its import is banned here, I've not seen anything to suggest that will change and it's the poorer dairy cross cattle that would normally be treated, I'm not sure that is the meat they would send here anyway, labelling is the key, do you really think the supermarkets will sell it here uk beef producers would have a field day. I think you'll find the actual figure for gh treated beef is around 20% of beef production in Australia, coming down because of consumer pressure. A big article about it a year or two ago. I can see it being banned over there too in the next few years. Just a question for those who keep on about cheaper beef and lamb. Do you prefer fresh or frozen meat? Therein lies your answer. Is frozen leave & fresh remain Or is it t'other way round ? Why would it make a difference? " Well it must do as the Brexiteers seem to be making a big noise out of it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. The dipping of sheep in OP's was compulsory for scab not fly strike . Australia only use gm for oil seed and sunflowers. The uk imports hundreds of thousand of tonnes of gm soya to feed animals and guess what, if you eat anything with soya in it you have consumed it too, it's impossible to differentiate once processed Did I say dipping was for fly strike ??? Please show me where? You didn't nor did I say you did but those that dont know much about sheep would assume it was how we controlled fly strike, different dips were used for flies but mostly its pour on these days( not that I've kept any for over 20 years)I've seen plenty on sheep backs and belly not just around the tail, it's not pleasant. As for your other point about half of Oz beef is treated with growth hormones and currently its import is banned here, I've not seen anything to suggest that will change and it's the poorer dairy cross cattle that would normally be treated, I'm not sure that is the meat they would send here anyway, labelling is the key, do you really think the supermarkets will sell it here uk beef producers would have a field day. I think you'll find the actual figure for gh treated beef is around 20% of beef production in Australia, coming down because of consumer pressure. A big article about it a year or two ago. I can see it being banned over there too in the next few years. Just a question for those who keep on about cheaper beef and lamb. Do you prefer fresh or frozen meat? Therein lies your answer. Is frozen leave & fresh remain Or is it t'other way round ? Why would it make a difference? Well it must do as the Brexiteers seem to be making a big noise out of it " we normally only ever eat fresh can’t think of any food we eat from frozen tbh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. The dipping of sheep in OP's was compulsory for scab not fly strike . Australia only use gm for oil seed and sunflowers. The uk imports hundreds of thousand of tonnes of gm soya to feed animals and guess what, if you eat anything with soya in it you have consumed it too, it's impossible to differentiate once processed Did I say dipping was for fly strike ??? Please show me where? You didn't nor did I say you did but those that dont know much about sheep would assume it was how we controlled fly strike, different dips were used for flies but mostly its pour on these days( not that I've kept any for over 20 years)I've seen plenty on sheep backs and belly not just around the tail, it's not pleasant. As for your other point about half of Oz beef is treated with growth hormones and currently its import is banned here, I've not seen anything to suggest that will change and it's the poorer dairy cross cattle that would normally be treated, I'm not sure that is the meat they would send here anyway, labelling is the key, do you really think the supermarkets will sell it here uk beef producers would have a field day. I think you'll find the actual figure for gh treated beef is around 20% of beef production in Australia, coming down because of consumer pressure. A big article about it a year or two ago. I can see it being banned over there too in the next few years. Just a question for those who keep on about cheaper beef and lamb. Do you prefer fresh or frozen meat? Therein lies your answer. Is frozen leave & fresh remain Or is it t'other way round ? Why would it make a difference? Well it must do as the Brexiteers seem to be making a big noise out of it we normally only ever eat fresh can’t think of any food we eat from frozen tbh " When i get Meat is usually from my local butcher Or at one of a couple of localish farmers markets So a leaver & a remainer both not buying frozen meat . Again what was the point of it being brought up in conversation ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. Ok, if you want to go down the road of the family farm. I worked on a farm for 20 years, 18 of which were as a shepherd averaging a flock of 800 ewes, plus ewe lambs and not forgetting the most important 20+ rams. It wasn't my farm, unfortunately but I do know all about farming practices. I also participated in dipping so are very much know about organo phosphorus dips which were quite rightly banned back in the late 80's in the UK. Fly strike in the UK is bad enough in the outback it must be horrific. It is worth noting, although not lessening the effect, the practice you speak of is used on merino sheep, used for wool production, a premium wool. The message being stop buying premium jumpers. Nothing to do with meat production because as I said earlier, it's not worth the cost. In my time farming I've also been a relief herdsmen, stockman and arable, so a good all round knowledge of the subject, unlike the majority on here who only see a headline! I've many friends who still farm and work on farms, so again reasonably current. As others have pointed out, the big factor in most of this are the supermarkets who have driven prices down over the years. As I've said I've already discussed the hormone/antibiotics on a previous thread and not wasting time writing it out again. I also mentioned reading the agreement, nowhere does it say about undercutting our food standards! Why should we undercut something we have taken years to build? Our standards and practices have always been higher than those in the EU and very often instigated long before they made it law. So yes I can talk from experience and knowledge, rather than reading a headline!" I bow to your experience but seeing as your points mostly agree with mine it’s all good, however the comment on Marino wool I will not argue with as I don’t have that detailed knowledge. We only had 150 ish and it was part of land we owned not our income. Dipping the rams as you will know was entertaining. It wasn’t a business just a few friends with land. Started off hand rearing the orphans and grew from there. That’s hen I first came across fly strike. Never heard of it before seeing a ewe with it. Allowing large scale producers such as American and Australian have with lower standards can not in anyone’s eyes be good for British farmers . Whether you agree with subsidies or not to allow a free for all on welfare and additives is not the way forward . Let’s see when the final details are published . Point 1.7 in the outline mentions best endeavours and good intentions on welfare but no ban on hormones | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. Ok, if you want to go down the road of the family farm. I worked on a farm for 20 years, 18 of which were as a shepherd averaging a flock of 800 ewes, plus ewe lambs and not forgetting the most important 20+ rams. It wasn't my farm, unfortunately but I do know all about farming practices. I also participated in dipping so are very much know about organo phosphorus dips which were quite rightly banned back in the late 80's in the UK. Fly strike in the UK is bad enough in the outback it must be horrific. It is worth noting, although not lessening the effect, the practice you speak of is used on merino sheep, used for wool production, a premium wool. The message being stop buying premium jumpers. Nothing to do with meat production because as I said earlier, it's not worth the cost. In my time farming I've also been a relief herdsmen, stockman and arable, so a good all round knowledge of the subject, unlike the majority on here who only see a headline! I've many friends who still farm and work on farms, so again reasonably current. As others have pointed out, the big factor in most of this are the supermarkets who have driven prices down over the years. As I've said I've already discussed the hormone/antibiotics on a previous thread and not wasting time writing it out again. I also mentioned reading the agreement, nowhere does it say about undercutting our food standards! Why should we undercut something we have taken years to build? Our standards and practices have always been higher than those in the EU and very often instigated long before they made it law. So yes I can talk from experience and knowledge, rather than reading a headline! I bow to your experience but seeing as your points mostly agree with mine it’s all good, however the comment on Marino wool I will not argue with as I don’t have that detailed knowledge. We only had 150 ish and it was part of land we owned not our income. Dipping the rams as you will know was entertaining. It wasn’t a business just a few friends with land. Started off hand rearing the orphans and grew from there. That’s hen I first came across fly strike. Never heard of it before seeing a ewe with it. Allowing large scale producers such as American and Australian have with lower standards can not in anyone’s eyes be good for British farmers . Whether you agree with subsidies or not to allow a free for all on welfare and additives is not the way forward . Let’s see when the final details are published . Point 1.7 in the outline mentions best endeavours and good intentions on welfare but no ban on hormones " Good to see you’ve softened your position in light of the facts. A sign of maturity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. Ok, if you want to go down the road of the family farm. I worked on a farm for 20 years, 18 of which were as a shepherd averaging a flock of 800 ewes, plus ewe lambs and not forgetting the most important 20+ rams. It wasn't my farm, unfortunately but I do know all about farming practices. I also participated in dipping so are very much know about organo phosphorus dips which were quite rightly banned back in the late 80's in the UK. Fly strike in the UK is bad enough in the outback it must be horrific. It is worth noting, although not lessening the effect, the practice you speak of is used on merino sheep, used for wool production, a premium wool. The message being stop buying premium jumpers. Nothing to do with meat production because as I said earlier, it's not worth the cost. In my time farming I've also been a relief herdsmen, stockman and arable, so a good all round knowledge of the subject, unlike the majority on here who only see a headline! I've many friends who still farm and work on farms, so again reasonably current. As others have pointed out, the big factor in most of this are the supermarkets who have driven prices down over the years. As I've said I've already discussed the hormone/antibiotics on a previous thread and not wasting time writing it out again. I also mentioned reading the agreement, nowhere does it say about undercutting our food standards! Why should we undercut something we have taken years to build? Our standards and practices have always been higher than those in the EU and very often instigated long before they made it law. So yes I can talk from experience and knowledge, rather than reading a headline! I bow to your experience but seeing as your points mostly agree with mine it’s all good, however the comment on Marino wool I will not argue with as I don’t have that detailed knowledge. We only had 150 ish and it was part of land we owned not our income. Dipping the rams as you will know was entertaining. It wasn’t a business just a few friends with land. Started off hand rearing the orphans and grew from there. That’s hen I first came across fly strike. Never heard of it before seeing a ewe with it. Allowing large scale producers such as American and Australian have with lower standards can not in anyone’s eyes be good for British farmers . Whether you agree with subsidies or not to allow a free for all on welfare and additives is not the way forward . Let’s see when the final details are published . Point 1.7 in the outline mentions best endeavours and good intentions on welfare but no ban on hormones Good to see you’ve softened your position in light of the facts. A sign of maturity. "Chris the only “claimed” fact the guy introduced was in reference to Marino wool and without looking up the detail I was t going to argue. I’ll do my homework. I don’t have imaginary professors to ask like you. On the point of 1.7 on the proposed agreement that is a fact and there are no safeguards for our meat imports. So saying just 20% of Australian beef if that is true, is hormone treated it is still a massive and huge probability that we will be eating it very shortly and not be told. That’s a government who looks after it people blatantly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. Ok, if you want to go down the road of the family farm. I worked on a farm for 20 years, 18 of which were as a shepherd averaging a flock of 800 ewes, plus ewe lambs and not forgetting the most important 20+ rams. It wasn't my farm, unfortunately but I do know all about farming practices. I also participated in dipping so are very much know about organo phosphorus dips which were quite rightly banned back in the late 80's in the UK. Fly strike in the UK is bad enough in the outback it must be horrific. It is worth noting, although not lessening the effect, the practice you speak of is used on merino sheep, used for wool production, a premium wool. The message being stop buying premium jumpers. Nothing to do with meat production because as I said earlier, it's not worth the cost. In my time farming I've also been a relief herdsmen, stockman and arable, so a good all round knowledge of the subject, unlike the majority on here who only see a headline! I've many friends who still farm and work on farms, so again reasonably current. As others have pointed out, the big factor in most of this are the supermarkets who have driven prices down over the years. As I've said I've already discussed the hormone/antibiotics on a previous thread and not wasting time writing it out again. I also mentioned reading the agreement, nowhere does it say about undercutting our food standards! Why should we undercut something we have taken years to build? Our standards and practices have always been higher than those in the EU and very often instigated long before they made it law. So yes I can talk from experience and knowledge, rather than reading a headline! I bow to your experience but seeing as your points mostly agree with mine it’s all good, however the comment on Marino wool I will not argue with as I don’t have that detailed knowledge. We only had 150 ish and it was part of land we owned not our income. Dipping the rams as you will know was entertaining. It wasn’t a business just a few friends with land. Started off hand rearing the orphans and grew from there. That’s hen I first came across fly strike. Never heard of it before seeing a ewe with it. Allowing large scale producers such as American and Australian have with lower standards can not in anyone’s eyes be good for British farmers . Whether you agree with subsidies or not to allow a free for all on welfare and additives is not the way forward . Let’s see when the final details are published . Point 1.7 in the outline mentions best endeavours and good intentions on welfare but no ban on hormones " Marino wool is sold as Premium wool & it Really shouldnt be . Its horrible stuff . Ive wirked in the ragtrade textile industry & its a sorry excuse for a wool product | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. Ok, if you want to go down the road of the family farm. I worked on a farm for 20 years, 18 of which were as a shepherd averaging a flock of 800 ewes, plus ewe lambs and not forgetting the most important 20+ rams. It wasn't my farm, unfortunately but I do know all about farming practices. I also participated in dipping so are very much know about organo phosphorus dips which were quite rightly banned back in the late 80's in the UK. Fly strike in the UK is bad enough in the outback it must be horrific. It is worth noting, although not lessening the effect, the practice you speak of is used on merino sheep, used for wool production, a premium wool. The message being stop buying premium jumpers. Nothing to do with meat production because as I said earlier, it's not worth the cost. In my time farming I've also been a relief herdsmen, stockman and arable, so a good all round knowledge of the subject, unlike the majority on here who only see a headline! I've many friends who still farm and work on farms, so again reasonably current. As others have pointed out, the big factor in most of this are the supermarkets who have driven prices down over the years. As I've said I've already discussed the hormone/antibiotics on a previous thread and not wasting time writing it out again. I also mentioned reading the agreement, nowhere does it say about undercutting our food standards! Why should we undercut something we have taken years to build? Our standards and practices have always been higher than those in the EU and very often instigated long before they made it law. So yes I can talk from experience and knowledge, rather than reading a headline! I bow to your experience but seeing as your points mostly agree with mine it’s all good, however the comment on Marino wool I will not argue with as I don’t have that detailed knowledge. We only had 150 ish and it was part of land we owned not our income. Dipping the rams as you will know was entertaining. It wasn’t a business just a few friends with land. Started off hand rearing the orphans and grew from there. That’s hen I first came across fly strike. Never heard of it before seeing a ewe with it. Allowing large scale producers such as American and Australian have with lower standards can not in anyone’s eyes be good for British farmers . Whether you agree with subsidies or not to allow a free for all on welfare and additives is not the way forward . Let’s see when the final details are published . Point 1.7 in the outline mentions best endeavours and good intentions on welfare but no ban on hormones Good to see you’ve softened your position in light of the facts. A sign of maturity.
Chris the only “claimed” fact the guy introduced was in reference to Marino wool and without looking up the detail I was t going to argue. I’ll do my homework. I don’t have imaginary professors to ask like you.
On the point of 1.7 on the proposed agreement that is a fact and there are no safeguards for our meat imports. So saying just 20% of Australian beef if that is true, is hormone treated it is still a massive and huge probability that we will be eating it very shortly and not be told. That’s a government who looks after it people blatantly.
"Or maybe not  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. Ok, if you want to go down the road of the family farm. I worked on a farm for 20 years, 18 of which were as a shepherd averaging a flock of 800 ewes, plus ewe lambs and not forgetting the most important 20+ rams. It wasn't my farm, unfortunately but I do know all about farming practices. I also participated in dipping so are very much know about organo phosphorus dips which were quite rightly banned back in the late 80's in the UK. Fly strike in the UK is bad enough in the outback it must be horrific. It is worth noting, although not lessening the effect, the practice you speak of is used on merino sheep, used for wool production, a premium wool. The message being stop buying premium jumpers. Nothing to do with meat production because as I said earlier, it's not worth the cost. In my time farming I've also been a relief herdsmen, stockman and arable, so a good all round knowledge of the subject, unlike the majority on here who only see a headline! I've many friends who still farm and work on farms, so again reasonably current. As others have pointed out, the big factor in most of this are the supermarkets who have driven prices down over the years. As I've said I've already discussed the hormone/antibiotics on a previous thread and not wasting time writing it out again. I also mentioned reading the agreement, nowhere does it say about undercutting our food standards! Why should we undercut something we have taken years to build? Our standards and practices have always been higher than those in the EU and very often instigated long before they made it law. So yes I can talk from experience and knowledge, rather than reading a headline! I bow to your experience but seeing as your points mostly agree with mine it’s all good, however the comment on Marino wool I will not argue with as I don’t have that detailed knowledge. We only had 150 ish and it was part of land we owned not our income. Dipping the rams as you will know was entertaining. It wasn’t a business just a few friends with land. Started off hand rearing the orphans and grew from there. That’s hen I first came across fly strike. Never heard of it before seeing a ewe with it. Allowing large scale producers such as American and Australian have with lower standards can not in anyone’s eyes be good for British farmers . Whether you agree with subsidies or not to allow a free for all on welfare and additives is not the way forward . Let’s see when the final details are published . Point 1.7 in the outline mentions best endeavours and good intentions on welfare but no ban on hormones Marino wool is sold as Premium wool & it Really shouldnt be . Its horrible stuff . Ive wirked in the ragtrade textile industry & its a sorry excuse for a wool product" Sorry but what a load of nonsense  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting comparison Maybe a deal with the Antarctic would be the perfect deal with such a large land mass. Sahara perhaps?? I think the reaction of farmers in the U.K. shows how fantastic this is for Australia but not the U.K. it turns out if all goes as planned in the best possible case we will all be 52p a year better off! Governments numbers ! Unfortunately….Guardian quote. ‘The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), however, is concerned as the government made no mention of safeguards for animal welfare in its press statement on Tuesday. It has raised concerns about UK farmers competing with lower standards on industrial scale ranches in Australia, which can involve up to 50,000 animals. More than 30 active substances are permitted for use on sugar cane that are illegal in the UK including paraquat, a killer banned by the EU in 2007. Animal welfare practices allowed in Australia but banned in the UK include “mulesing”, the removal of wool-bearing skin in the buttock area of sheep to prevent infection by flies. What about use of antibiotics in Australian farms? Antibiotics are in effect permitted for use as a growth promoter, a practice banned in the UK since 2006. Antibiotic usage levels are 16 times per animal in poultry and triple the amount in pigs. The overuse of antibiotics in farming is one of the biggest causes of the rapidly growing resistance to the drugs across the world, which threatens to make even the strongest antibiotics ineffective and make routine operations such as hip replacements potentially life-threatening.” Grim reading on such a wonderful great deal !! I agree with you, it does make from reading. But then it's the guardian! A lot of the question around growth hormone and antibiotics I answered in a previous thread on the subject. I'm not going to rehash them here and waste my time as it wouldn't be listened to, anyway. Maybe if you'd seen a ewe with maggots you would understand why such a thing is practiced and the skin wouldn't be removed because that would just encourage the very thing you are trying to stop. As for food standards I guess nobody has actually read the agreement? Because if you had you would read that UK food standards have to be adhered to, thus nullifying the argument over GH etc As for paraquat, I don't know whether the Australians use it , but I do know if was banned in the UK a long time before it was banned in the EU. Antibiotics cost money, a lot of money so actually are only used when necessary. A farmer wouldn't spend money unecessarily. Especially in Australia where it would be cheaper to kill livestock than treat them. Sad fact of life but true. As for the nfu complaining, that's their job. There are two main types of farmer in this country, lowland and upland. The lowland do not need the subsidiaries that the EU have, in their wisdom given out of the last few decades. The upland do. They were those that the idea of subsidy was set up for. But the EU decided in their way to make it inclusive. Making lowland farmers richer and the upland still struggling. Sounds fair doesn't it? Hopefully that will be taken into account with any new subsidies. But the NFU will complain because that's the majority of their members. The guardian. A newspaper written by remainers and city dwellers for remainers and city dwellers! Guardian criticism is nonsense so I’ll ignore that. The farmers are complaining because so far the protection against GM animal rearing hasn’t been shown in writing. Having kept sheep on a family farm I know very well about fly strikes and have treated them successfully without skinning the lamb. It’s a fucking horrific practice. Like America, Australia uses hormones and anti biotics as standard on the large scale farms. They are banned here as a general feed for a reason and it’s not financial. The EU farming subsidies needed reforming a fact I won’t argue with and as a note they were being reviewed to stop the abuse of the larger farms raking in millions for doing nothing. Look into stock yard farming and see the way the cattle are reared . Not pretty. Forced growth is asking for long term health issues. The principal of poor standards being allowed to undercut our higher standards is ridiculous. We need food production and farms to survive so yes they need protection or will we just eventually follow the Far East method snd keep dogs in market cages because it’s cheaper ? Just another point . I remember sheep dipping in chemicals which was banned by the EU. I have to say those dips were some very nasty chemicals so they have my support in banning such practices. Ok, if you want to go down the road of the family farm. I worked on a farm for 20 years, 18 of which were as a shepherd averaging a flock of 800 ewes, plus ewe lambs and not forgetting the most important 20+ rams. It wasn't my farm, unfortunately but I do know all about farming practices. I also participated in dipping so are very much know about organo phosphorus dips which were quite rightly banned back in the late 80's in the UK. Fly strike in the UK is bad enough in the outback it must be horrific. It is worth noting, although not lessening the effect, the practice you speak of is used on merino sheep, used for wool production, a premium wool. The message being stop buying premium jumpers. Nothing to do with meat production because as I said earlier, it's not worth the cost. In my time farming I've also been a relief herdsmen, stockman and arable, so a good all round knowledge of the subject, unlike the majority on here who only see a headline! I've many friends who still farm and work on farms, so again reasonably current. As others have pointed out, the big factor in most of this are the supermarkets who have driven prices down over the years. As I've said I've already discussed the hormone/antibiotics on a previous thread and not wasting time writing it out again. I also mentioned reading the agreement, nowhere does it say about undercutting our food standards! Why should we undercut something we have taken years to build? Our standards and practices have always been higher than those in the EU and very often instigated long before they made it law. So yes I can talk from experience and knowledge, rather than reading a headline! I bow to your experience but seeing as your points mostly agree with mine it’s all good, however the comment on Marino wool I will not argue with as I don’t have that detailed knowledge. We only had 150 ish and it was part of land we owned not our income. Dipping the rams as you will know was entertaining. It wasn’t a business just a few friends with land. Started off hand rearing the orphans and grew from there. That’s hen I first came across fly strike. Never heard of it before seeing a ewe with it. Allowing large scale producers such as American and Australian have with lower standards can not in anyone’s eyes be good for British farmers . Whether you agree with subsidies or not to allow a free for all on welfare and additives is not the way forward . Let’s see when the final details are published . Point 1.7 in the outline mentions best endeavours and good intentions on welfare but no ban on hormones Marino wool is sold as Premium wool & it Really shouldnt be . Its horrible stuff . Ive wirked in the ragtrade textile industry & its a sorry excuse for a wool product Sorry but what a load of nonsense "You think . Merino wool , the correct spelling is only Bred in sheep not used in Farmed meats firstly . A lambswool is far superior to a regular Merino wool As it is much shorter in strand & therefore Softer in skin contact , Lamswool would be next then youd be looking at Angora then qiviut then cashmere & finally the most expensive Which would be vicuna . Only super chunky Merinos which are worked far harder To produce a much softer wool would be classed as decent . Italian Leather is not just the same as regular leather Look at the work put into the hide . Hence why italian leather costs far more than Regular leather . Same with Egyptian cotton over regular cotton . Again with Linens , the more its taken care of the softer it is & so it becomes far more expensive . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So it turns out Mulesing has been banned in New Zealand recently due to cruelty concerns. The animals who undergo the treatment in Australia do not have pain control enforced by law. It’s a painful unnecessary procedure on young animals. The alternatives are more Labour intense and higher in cost, The merino sheep are bread to have wrinkly skin so they can have a larger surface area and produce more wool. The animals sometimes cannot walk due to the weight of the wool. So we can conclude 1. It’s greed driving this practice 2. It’s cruel and unnecessary 3. Our government don’t give a fuck about animal welfare. So the Australians have growth hormone reared beef to get the animals to grow unnaturally quickly, They have stock yards like the USA with herds 50k plus. The sheep are treated in much the same way whilst the Marino sheep have an especially cruel time. Hope all you supporters of the deal on food grounds are happy with all the above. Don’t start on other countries do this or the other as this is about just this amazing deal. This deal is shouted out as a great deal for us and British farming. How exactly? " Hence why Merino wool is so horrible . See what merino wool is like compared to Lambswool after 2 washes . Totally different . Merino products are far more likely to have shrinkage The wool is coarse & not very nice . Cheap nasty wool | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So it turns out Mulesing has been banned in New Zealand recently due to cruelty concerns. The animals who undergo the treatment in Australia do not have pain control enforced by law. It’s a painful unnecessary procedure on young animals. The alternatives are more Labour intense and higher in cost, The merino sheep are bread to have wrinkly skin so they can have a larger surface area and produce more wool. The animals sometimes cannot walk due to the weight of the wool. So we can conclude 1. It’s greed driving this practice 2. It’s cruel and unnecessary 3. Our government don’t give a fuck about animal welfare. So the Australians have growth hormone reared beef to get the animals to grow unnaturally quickly, They have stock yards like the USA with herds 50k plus. The sheep are treated in much the same way whilst the Marino sheep have an especially cruel time. Hope all you supporters of the deal on food grounds are happy with all the above. Don’t start on other countries do this or the other as this is about just this amazing deal. This deal is shouted out as a great deal for us and British farming. How exactly? Hence why Merino wool is so horrible . See what merino wool is like compared to Lambswool after 2 washes . Totally different . Merino products are far more likely to have shrinkage The wool is coarse & not very nice . Cheap nasty wool " Comedian | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So it turns out Mulesing has been banned in New Zealand recently due to cruelty concerns. The animals who undergo the treatment in Australia do not have pain control enforced by law. It’s a painful unnecessary procedure on young animals. The alternatives are more Labour intense and higher in cost, The merino sheep are bread to have wrinkly skin so they can have a larger surface area and produce more wool. The animals sometimes cannot walk due to the weight of the wool. So we can conclude 1. It’s greed driving this practice 2. It’s cruel and unnecessary 3. Our government don’t give a fuck about animal welfare. So the Australians have growth hormone reared beef to get the animals to grow unnaturally quickly, They have stock yards like the USA with herds 50k plus. The sheep are treated in much the same way whilst the Marino sheep have an especially cruel time. Hope all you supporters of the deal on food grounds are happy with all the above. Don’t start on other countries do this or the other as this is about just this amazing deal. This deal is shouted out as a great deal for us and British farming. How exactly? Hence why Merino wool is so horrible . See what merino wool is like compared to Lambswool after 2 washes . Totally different . Merino products are far more likely to have shrinkage The wool is coarse & not very nice . Cheap nasty wool Comedian " Yes you are Boaty mcBoatBoy Yes you are
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Contributes 0.02% to GDP, not really the figure to get too excited about it. " Plus the environmental impact burning fuel to haul goods half way round the plant with either shipping or air freight | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is so much ignorance about Australian farming practices here - It makes me sad for all our hard working farmers that care for their animals through so many adverse conditions including drought, bushfires, floods and plagues… " Fully agree on this too. Shocking maltreatment of animals in Australia. I just hope goods are labelled openky so i can avoid them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The food in Australia is famously good Quality of produce in shops is excellent and affordable Unlike U.S. food Does anybody think the threat of chlorinated chicken is gone?" there is no threat we don’t import it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is so much ignorance about Australian farming practices here - It makes me sad for all our hard working farmers that care for their animals through so many adverse conditions including drought, bushfires, floods and plagues… Fully agree on this too. Shocking maltreatment of animals in Australia. I just hope goods are labelled openky so i can avoid them " Untrue | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The food in Australia is famously good Quality of produce in shops is excellent and affordable Unlike U.S. food Does anybody think the threat of chlorinated chicken is gone?" So no growth hormones in beef? Strange how they are mentioned in the trade deal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The food in Australia is famously good Quality of produce in shops is excellent and affordable Unlike U.S. food Does anybody think the threat of chlorinated chicken is gone? there is no threat we don’t import it " Yet. If i was you id worry because boris said there was no threat of U.S. food being part of any future trade deal He was very clear Gulp. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The food in Australia is famously good Quality of produce in shops is excellent and affordable Unlike U.S. food Does anybody think the threat of chlorinated chicken is gone? So no growth hormones in beef? Strange how they are mentioned in the trade deal. " What do you mean? Speak up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The food in Australia is famously good Quality of produce in shops is excellent and affordable Unlike U.S. food Does anybody think the threat of chlorinated chicken is gone? So no growth hormones in beef? Strange how they are mentioned in the trade deal. " Nearly half of Aus farmers are registered to use growth hormones in cattle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The food in Australia is famously good Quality of produce in shops is excellent and affordable Unlike U.S. food Does anybody think the threat of chlorinated chicken is gone? So no growth hormones in beef? Strange how they are mentioned in the trade deal. " Ah yes It would help if i read the thread i do comment on Indeed.like the beef Boris will sell out everything for numbers in all these trade deals coming up and lie about it while doing it He will even sell the family silver and the nhs to U.S. big pharma inc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is so much ignorance about Australian farming practices here - It makes me sad for all our hard working farmers that care for their animals through so many adverse conditions including drought, bushfires, floods and plagues… Fully agree on this too. Shocking maltreatment of animals in Australia. I just hope goods are labelled openky so i can avoid them Untrue " Whay is? Standards, pollution of transport, labels? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is so much ignorance about Australian farming practices here - It makes me sad for all our hard working farmers that care for their animals through so many adverse conditions including drought, bushfires, floods and plagues… Fully agree on this too. Shocking maltreatment of animals in Australia. I just hope goods are labelled openky so i can avoid them Untrue " Quick google "Unfortunately, animal welfare standards in Australia are basic at best. In 2021, we still do not have Australia-wide laws that ban the use of sow stalls in pig production, barren battery cages in egg production or require pain relief for very painful procedures like dehorning of calves and mulesing of lambs." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
