Meat Production is Making the Rich Ill and the Poor Hungry
RJC
Rome for the World Food Summit. The meeting will focus on how to
create a sustainable approach to development and get food in the
mouths of the nearly 1 billion who are currently undernourished. More
interesting than the agenda, however, will be the menu. At both the
official dinners and at NGO gatherings, expect to see the consumption
of large quantities of meat. And herein lies the contradiction.
Hundreds of millions of people are going hungry all over the world
because much of the arable land is being used to grow feed grain for
animals rather than for people. Cattle are among the most inefficient
converters of feed. In the US, 157 million metric tons of cereal,
legumes and vegetable protein suitable for human use is fed to
livestock to produce 28 million metric tons of animal protein for
annual human consumption.
The worldwide demand for feed grain continues to grow, as
multinational corporations seek to capitalize on the meat demands of
affluent countries. Two-thirds of the increases in grain production in
the US and Europe between 1950 and 1985, the boom years in
agriculture, went to provide feed grain.
In developing countries, the question of land reform has periodically
rallied peasant populations and spawned populist political uprisings.
But the question of how the land is used has been of less interest.
Yet the decision to use the land to create an artificial food chain
has resulted in misery for hundreds of millions around the world. An
acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre devoted
to meat production; legumes (beans, peas, lentils) can produce 10
times more protein and leafy vegetables 15 times more.
The global corporations that produce the seeds, the farm chemicals and
the cattle and that control the slaughterhouse and the marketing and
distribution channels for beef are eager to tout the advantage of
grain-fed livestock. Advertising and sales campaigns geared to
developing nations are quick to equate grain-fed beef with a country's
prestige. Climbing the "protein ladder" becomes the mark of success.
Enlarging and diversifying their meat supply appears to be a first
step for every developing country. They start by putting in modern
broiler and egg production facilities - the fastest and cheapest way
to produce nonplant protein. Then, as rapidly as their economies
permit, they climb "the protein ladder" to pork, milk, and dairy
products, to grass-fed beef and finally, if they can, to grain-fed
beef.
Encouraging other nations to do this advances the interests of
American farmers and agribusiness companies. Two-thirds of all the
grain exported from the US to other countries goes to feed livestock
rather than to feed hungry people.
Many developing nations climbed the protein ladder at the height of
the agricultural boom, when "green revolution" technology was
producing grain surpluses. In 1971 the Food and Agricultural
Organization suggested switching to coarse grains that could be more
easily consumed by livestock. The US government provided further
encouragement in its foreign aid program, tying food aid to
development of feed grain markets. Companies like Ralston Purina and
Cargill were given low-interest government loans to establish
grain-fed poultry operations in developing countries. Many nations
followed the advice of the FAO and have attempted to remain high on
the protein ladder long after the surpluses of the green revolution
have disappeared.
The shift from food to feed continues apace in many nations, with no
sign of reversal. The human consequences of the transition were
dramatically illustrated in 1984 in Ethiopia when thousands of people
were dying each day from famine. At the very same time Ethiopia was
using some of its agricultural land to produce linseed cake,
cottonseed cake and rapeseed meal for export to the UK and other
European nations as feed for livestock. Millions of acres of third
world land are now being used exclusively to produce feed for European
livestock.
Tragically, some 80% of the world's hungry children live in countries
with actual food surpluses, much of which is in the form of feed fed
to animals which will be consumed by only the well-to-do consumers. In
the developing world, the share of grain fed to livestock has tripled
since 1950 and now exceeds 21% of the total grain produced.
The irony of the present system is that millions of wealthy consumers
in the first world are dying from diseases of affluence (heart
attacks, strokes, diabetes, cancer) brought on by gorging on fatty
grain-fed meats, while the poor in the third world are dying of
diseases of poverty brought on by the denial of access to land to grow
food grain for their families. We are long overdue for a global
discussion on how best to promote a diversified, high-protein,
vegetarian diet for the human race.
FILES > FOOD > PROCESSED
http://www.transnationale.org/anglais/dossiers/alimentation/industrielle.htm
Terry von Gease
news:63a01fab.02052...@posting.google.com...
.
..cubic yards of bilge spinning at high rpm mercifully deleted...
> The irony of the present system is that millions of wealthy consumers
> in the first world are dying from diseases of affluence (heart
> attacks, strokes, diabetes, cancer) brought on by gorging on fatty
> grain-fed meats, while the poor in the third world are dying of
> diseases of poverty brought on by the denial of access to land to grow
> food grain for their families.
The above represents a rather typical, if lackluster, mindless vego-rant.
It was left in place for comic relief as well as for fodder for an inning of
Spot the Fallacy.
>We are long overdue for a global
> discussion on how best to promote a diversified, high-protein,
> vegetarian diet for the human race.
Twaddle. The only reason that you can indulge yourself and choose to be a
vegetarian is because of a robust and affluent society that makes it
possible. Otherwise you'd be spending every waking hour hunting and
gathering in order to survive until tomorrow so you can do it again. It's a
hell of a lot more effective to gather up a high protein carcass of some
large herbivore than a handful of roots and berries. If you can manage it.
There is nothing inherently noble or particularly efficient in eating only
twigs and leaves and such. It's merely a choice that's provided you by the
rest of society, mostly flesh eaters You are privileged to have such a
choice, not everyone does.
--
Terry
Forgive him, he is a barbarian and thinks that the
customs of his tribe and island are laws of nature
RPM1
> > The irony of the present system is that millions of wealthy consumers
> > in the first world are dying from diseases of affluence (heart
> > attacks, strokes, diabetes, cancer) brought on by gorging on
... refined sugars and highly processed foods.
Bishop Mbong0
And of course sitting on their fat ass doing no exercises.
And that doesn't mean breast exercises like you Clark!!!!
Lou W
"Bishop Mbong0" <bishopmbongoAL...@icuknet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:3d3f68c6...@casper.12.net...
> On Thu, 23 May 2002 18:04:29 -0400, "RPM1"
> <rpm1del...@nospamfrontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> > "RJC"
> >> > The irony of the present system is that millions of wealthy consumers
> >> > in the first world are dying from diseases of affluence (heart
> >> > attacks, strokes, diabetes, cancer) brought on by gorging on
> >
> >... refined sugars and highly processed foods.
>
> And of course sitting on their fat ass doing no exercises.
>
topic.
Lou
Mungo Toadfoot
> Rome for the World Food Summit.
.........................hummmmdedummmmm..................
............................................................................
..
.......sorry, did you say something? I was miles away!
Si
Camcompany
is it just that you like to keep a breast of the times. Now that was crap
even by my standards - time I went to bed.
Bishop Mbong0
Nah that tickled me lol
Matthew Malthouse
"Terry von Gease" <terry_v...@hp.com> wrote:
} Twaddle. The only reason that you can indulge yourself and choose to be a
} vegetarian is because of a robust and affluent society that makes it
} possible. Otherwise you'd be spending every waking hour hunting and
} gathering in order to survive until tomorrow so you can do it again. It's
a
} hell of a lot more effective to gather up a high protein carcass of some
} large herbivore than a handful of roots and berries. If you can manage
it.
I don't agree with the original piece but neither is this response
reasonable.
The number of people that can be sustained be a piece of high fertility
land used to raise meat is aproximately a fifth of the number who could be
sustained if the same land were used for raising vegetables.
Animal husbandry only wins out over vegetable farming in very low fertility
areas where the predominent vegtation cannot be usefully ingested by
humans.
The comparison between meat farming and a hunter gatherer existence is
fatuous; as much a distortion of argument as the original posting.
Matthew
[Removed rec.equestrian from the newsgroups line as I suspect the topic of
that group does not encompass the eating of horses.]
--
Sic fac fritatem de pomeraciis: recipe ova percussa, cum pomeranciis ad libitum
tuum, et extrahe inde sucum, et mitte ad illa ove cum zucaro; post hoc recipe
oleum olive, vel semigine, et fac califeri in patella, et mitte illa ova intus.
Et erit pro ruffianis et leccatricibus et meretricibus.
Doug Jones
te...@transnationale.org (RJC) wrote:
>In June, agricultural ministers from around the world will gather in
>Rome for the World Food Summit. The meeting will focus on how to
>create a sustainable approach to development and get food in the
>mouths of the nearly 1 billion who are currently undernourished. More
>interesting than the agenda, however, will be the menu. At both the
>official dinners and at NGO gatherings, expect to see the consumption
>of large quantities of meat. And herein lies the contradiction.
>
>Hundreds of millions of people are going hungry all over the world
>because much of the arable land is being used to grow feed grain for
>animals rather than for people. Cattle are among the most inefficient
>converters of feed. In the US, 157 million metric tons of cereal,
>legumes and vegetable protein suitable for human use is fed to
>livestock to produce 28 million metric tons of animal protein for
>annual human consumption.
>
Here's a little economics lesson for you. If the farmer could make
more money selling grain to those countries than for animal feed, he'd
sell it there. Your little missive apparently assumes that all this
costs nothing, or will be done free of charge.
<snip>
>In developing countries, the question of land reform has periodically
>rallied peasant populations and spawned populist political uprisings.
>But the question of how the land is used has been of less interest.
>Yet the decision to use the land to create an artificial food chain
>has resulted in misery for hundreds of millions around the world. An
>acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre devoted
>to meat production; legumes (beans, peas, lentils) can produce 10
>times more protein and leafy vegetables 15 times more.
<snip rest of crap>
Interestingly enough, one of those land reform measures you mention is
a cause of tropical rainforest loss. The decision to use the land for
farmng turns out to have been a lousy one... turns out deforested land
from that area isn't capable of sustainably growing a crop. Then we
could also look at the burning of land to create cropland in various
parts of the world... oops.
BTW... since humans have been eating meat since the beginning, how is
eating meat "artificial"?
Doug Jones
Jonathan Ball
[mostly bullshit, but this stands out from the rest]
> Tragically, some 80% of the world's hungry children live in countries
> with actual food surpluses, much of which is in the form of feed fed
> to animals which will be consumed by only the well-to-do consumers. In
> the developing world, the share of grain fed to livestock has tripled
> since 1950 and now exceeds 21% of the total grain produced.
As usual, you can't produce a single citation actually
documenting the wild, extravagant claim that a
significant percentage, let alone most, grain in
developing countries is fed to livestock.
Secondly, the statistic you give above is meaningless.
If total grain production has increased dramatically,
at a faster rate than the population, then feeding a
larger percentage of it to livestock is not necessarily
causing a "shortage" for humans.
Try this on for size:
According to FAO data, 589 million tonnes of maize
were
produced worldwide in 2000, on 138 million hectares.
The United States was the largest maize producer
(43%
of world production) followed by Asia (25%) and
Latin
America and the Caribbean (13%). Africa produced 7%
of
the world’s maize.
http://www.iita.org/crop/maize.htm
The U.S. produces nearly half the maize (corn) in the
world. The grain fed to livestock here is not
"causing" world hunger.
The claim that grain is being diverted from hungry
people to feed livestock for the "rich" is unsupported.
Larry Caldwell
> In June, agricultural ministers from around the world will gather in
> Rome for the World Food Summit. The meeting will focus on how to
> create a sustainable approach to development and get food in the
> mouths of the nearly 1 billion who are currently undernourished. More
> interesting than the agenda, however, will be the menu. At both the
> official dinners and at NGO gatherings, expect to see the consumption
> of large quantities of meat. And herein lies the contradiction.
Eww. Ick. Meat. Eww. Let's all stop thinking now.
> Hundreds of millions of people are going hungry all over the world
> because much of the arable land is being used to grow feed grain for
> animals rather than for people. Cattle are among the most inefficient
> converters of feed. In the US, 157 million metric tons of cereal,
> legumes and vegetable protein suitable for human use is fed to
> livestock to produce 28 million metric tons of animal protein for
> annual human consumption.
Hundreds of millions of people are going hungry because their leaders are
corrupt and inefficient, or they are spending too much energy killing
their fellow man instead of farming. Cereal grain prices are near their
historic low for the entire history of mankind. For 18 years out of the
last 20, cereal grain prices have been below the cost of production.
People burn seed corn in pellet stoves because the cost is only 1/4 the
price of wood pellets, and cheaper than any other heating fuel.
> The worldwide demand for feed grain continues to grow, as
> multinational corporations seek to capitalize on the meat demands of
> affluent countries. Two-thirds of the increases in grain production in
> the US and Europe between 1950 and 1985, the boom years in
> agriculture, went to provide feed grain.
China must be a terrible frustration to you. After an enforced
vegetarian diet for nearly 50 years, they move back to meat at the first
opportunity. The very first consumer choice most Chinese make when they
have some spare cash is to put a hunk of chicken or pork in their rice.
China has become a huge importer of US meat products and livestock feed.
One rapidly increasing market in China is soybean based fish food for
fish farms.
China is a market of a billion people, all of them hungry for meat. That
market is certainly the biggest single growth market for American,
European and Australian agriculture.
> In developing countries, the question of land reform has periodically
> rallied peasant populations and spawned populist political uprisings.
> But the question of how the land is used has been of less interest.
> Yet the decision to use the land to create an artificial food chain
> has resulted in misery for hundreds of millions around the world. An
> acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre devoted
> to meat production; legumes (beans, peas, lentils) can produce 10
> times more protein and leafy vegetables 15 times more.
The world already produces more food than it needs. Hunger always has
political causes. You are contributing to world hunger by your
misdirecting and inaccurate statements.
> The global corporations that produce the seeds, the farm chemicals and
> the cattle and that control the slaughterhouse and the marketing and
> distribution channels for beef are eager to tout the advantage of
> grain-fed livestock. Advertising and sales campaigns geared to
> developing nations are quick to equate grain-fed beef with a country's
> prestige. Climbing the "protein ladder" becomes the mark of success.
We will do anything we can to get rid of all our excess food. Meat is an
easy sell, since so much of the world is protein starved, but we would be
tickled to sell them wheat, barley, peas, corn, beans or any other crop
they want to buy. The big problem is getting to the consumer. When we
ship relief grains to famine areas, most of it rots on the docks and
never gets to the hungry people. This is a political problem, not an
agricultural problem.
> Enlarging and diversifying their meat supply appears to be a first
> step for every developing country. They start by putting in modern
> broiler and egg production facilities - the fastest and cheapest way
> to produce nonplant protein. Then, as rapidly as their economies
> permit, they climb "the protein ladder" to pork, milk, and dairy
> products, to grass-fed beef and finally, if they can, to grain-fed
> beef.
Not all cultures are beef eaters. The Chinese prefer pork to beef,
perhaps because of its higher fat content.
> Encouraging other nations to do this advances the interests of
> American farmers and agribusiness companies. Two-thirds of all the
> grain exported from the US to other countries goes to feed livestock
> rather than to feed hungry people.
And we would gladly export twice as much. The Aussies are stiff
competition in the noodle wheat market, though.
> Many developing nations climbed the protein ladder at the height of
> the agricultural boom, when "green revolution" technology was
> producing grain surpluses. In 1971 the Food and Agricultural
> Organization suggested switching to coarse grains that could be more
> easily consumed by livestock. The US government provided further
> encouragement in its foreign aid program, tying food aid to
> development of feed grain markets. Companies like Ralston Purina and
> Cargill were given low-interest government loans to establish
> grain-fed poultry operations in developing countries. Many nations
> followed the advice of the FAO and have attempted to remain high on
> the protein ladder long after the surpluses of the green revolution
> have disappeared.
It may come as a great surprise to you, but Cargill is a Canadian
company. The rest of this paragraph is just garbage. There is no such
thing as "coarse grains that could be more easily consumed by livestock."
They don't exist.
> The shift from food to feed continues apace in many nations, with no
> sign of reversal. The human consequences of the transition were
> dramatically illustrated in 1984 in Ethiopia when thousands of people
> were dying each day from famine. At the very same time Ethiopia was
> using some of its agricultural land to produce linseed cake,
> cottonseed cake and rapeseed meal for export to the UK and other
> European nations as feed for livestock. Millions of acres of third
> world land are now being used exclusively to produce feed for European
> livestock.
In Ethiopia, as in every famine, political corruption was the cause.
Ethiopians intercepted the relief food shipments and sold them for profit
in other countries.
> Tragically, some 80% of the world's hungry children live in countries
> with actual food surpluses, much of which is in the form of feed fed
> to animals which will be consumed by only the well-to-do consumers. In
> the developing world, the share of grain fed to livestock has tripled
> since 1950 and now exceeds 21% of the total grain produced.
Once again, hunger has a political cause, not an agricultural one.
> The irony of the present system is that millions of wealthy consumers
> in the first world are dying from diseases of affluence (heart
> attacks, strokes, diabetes, cancer) brought on by gorging on fatty
> grain-fed meats, while the poor in the third world are dying of
> diseases of poverty brought on by the denial of access to land to grow
> food grain for their families. We are long overdue for a global
> discussion on how best to promote a diversified, high-protein,
> vegetarian diet for the human race.
That must be why the life expectancy of a 60 year old in developed
countries has increased by 4 years in the last 20. Pension plans are
having to reduce pension benefits because people are living longer, while
life insurance companies are reaping a windfall profit because people are
taking so long to die. New research is showing that diet has little
effect on cholesterol levels. Exercise is much more important.
Diabetes, of course, afflicts vegetarians too.
Most of the human race sees marked drawbacks to vegetarianism. When
nations have been driven by necessity to adopt vegetarianism, the result
has uniformly been malnutrition, characterized by protein and lipid
shortage.
Lotus
The Cornell-China-Oxford Project on Nutrition, Health and
Environment shows otherwise.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/Dec95/asianpyramid.ssl.html
The following scenario has been and is very common, even in the west;
'..
The cattle boom of the 1960s brought even greater destruction to the
Guatemalan landscape and to traditional forms of agriculture. Heavily
funded by AID and multilateral development banks, beef production
accelerated deforestation and further impoverished much of the population.
The beef industry, exporting almost exclusively to the United States,
continues to destroy vast expanses of rainforest in the Peten, where
20 percent of Guatemala's 2.5 million head of cattle now graze. In other
areas, peasants are thrown off even the most marginal lands because
cattle can be raised where other exports cannot. Additional deforestation
results, as people dispossessed from their land move further up the
hillsides or migrate to the Peten. Unemployment has also risen, because
cattle ranching requires few workers and displaces other, more
labor-intensive agriculture. The increased marginalization and
impoverishment of the rural majority resulting from the expansion of
cattle ranching has led to the bitter irony that beef consumption in
Guatemala is less than half of what it was 10 years ago, according
to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report. Beef has undermined the
livelihood of Guatemalans more than any other agro-export. ..'
http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1991/01/mm0191_05.html
In order to produce sufficient food (for those that have the means
to grow or pay for it) billions of acres of arable and non arable
land, -formerly natural habitat for both wildlife and humans, have
been 'converted' to agricultural land.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html
Oz
1) This supports what larry was saying (mostly snipped).
2) The US really doesn't need beef, it has plenty of it's own.
3) Guatamala needs money, although exporting beef to the US doesn't seem
to me like the best way.
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Robert Goodrick
Larry Caldwell wrote:
Last time I checked (less than 20 minutes ago) Cargill "IS NOT" Canadian,
AFAIK it is and always has been an American company
R.
Mary Fisher
Robert Goodrick <rgoo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3CFAF44C...@shaw.ca...
>
>
> >
> >
> > It may come as a great surprise to you, but Cargill is a Canadian
> > company.
> Last time I checked (less than 20 minutes ago) Cargill "IS NOT" Canadian,
> AFAIK it is and always has been an American company
>
> R.
> That Cargill is American comes as no surprise to me, although I've never
heard of Cargill.
The lack of surprise is because there were several other bits of
misinformation in the poster's diatribe which I DO know to be wrong.
Mary
Lotus
That the cause of hunger is political? Yes it is, where resources
haven't already been degraded even to the point of desertification as has
happened in many places due to overgrazing and intensive feed production.
Otherwise it is due to the concentration of resources in the hands of
the few, often for the sake of intensive livestock farming, as above.
> 2) The US really doesn't need beef, it has plenty of it's own.
And vast expanses of the U.S have been severely degraded as a result.
> 3) Guatamala needs money, although exporting beef to the US doesn't seem
> to me like the best way.
True. Money for some- poverty for others. Better sustainable
living for all, as it had been for millennia.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html
Gordon Couger
"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j19qAKDc...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
are the only large source of Okra one of the few vegetables that this area
is suited to produce. It has to be hand picked and because it makes you itch
when you pick it we can't hire workers to pick it at a price that is
economic in this country.
As long as the US dollar is strong almost any country with a weak currency
can do well importing beef to the US. You can make money shipping coal to
Newcastle if your coal is cheap enough.
--
Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger
Gordon Couger
"Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:3CFA61F4...@esatclear.ie...
Can you show me these degraded areas? My family has been ranching since 1876
and the land carries more cattle today than it did then. I would hardly call
that degraded.
There are some badly overgrazed pastures that would take a good many years
to recover but they can be rehabilitated with good mangament.
I can show you a great deal more damge done by the plow than ever done by
grazing.
Oz
>
>
>Oz wrote:
>>
>> 1) This supports what larry was saying (mostly snipped).
>
>That the cause of hunger is political? Yes it is, where resources
>haven't already been degraded even to the point of desertification as has
>happened in many places due to overgrazing and intensive feed production.
>Otherwise it is due to the concentration of resources in the hands of
>the few, often for the sake of intensive livestock farming, as above.
Name me a country in this situation where famine is happening, or
happened recently, where war or criminal government is not the primary
cause.
>> 2) The US really doesn't need beef, it has plenty of it's own.
>
>And vast expanses of the U.S have been severely degraded as a result.
It still has more than enough of it's own, even if you are right.
>> 3) Guatamala needs money, although exporting beef to the US doesn't seem
>> to me like the best way.
>
>True. Money for some- poverty for others.
This is, of course, political (see above) and guatamalan's are not in a
famine situation. Not a good example then.
>Better sustainable
>living for all, as it had been for millennia.
Unfortunately populations in many countries are not the same as they
were a few millennia ago. Fortunately ag production has kept up with
demand.
Lotus
Gordon Couger wrote:
>
> "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:3CFA61F4...@esatclear.ie...
> >
> >
> > Oz wrote:
> > >
> > > Lotus writes
{..}
But have you measured topsoil loss?
'On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss
averages 13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands
are eroding at a slower pace, at an average of 6 tons
per hectare per year. But erosion may exceed 100 tons
on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54 percent of U.S.
pasture land is being overgrazed. ..'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
'At least 50 percent of U.S. wetlands have been lost since
colonial times, along with 60 million acres of long-leafed
pine forests in the southeastern coastal plain and nearly
90 percent of all natural prairie areas in the Midwest and
in the Canadian grain belt. Loss of vital organic matter
and soil nutrients to erosion costs U.S. and Canadian farmers
more than $2 billion yearly in lost production.
Deteriorating Water Quality
North American surface waters--lakes, rivers, streams and
estuaries--may be cleaner than they were 25 years ago, but
progress in combating pollution has been slower than experts
expected. As a consequence, fish populations are
increasingly imperiled. Scientists claim some 364 species of
North American freshwater fish either have been extinguished
or are endangered as a direct result of the loss of riverine
habitats to human activities. In addition, 43 percent of the
continent's freshwater mussel species and subspecies have
either disappeared or are in trouble.
Groundwater aquifers have fared little better. Out of 124,000
wells sampled in the United States, 24,000 of them had
elevated concentrations of nitrates, with nearly 9,000
exceeding EPA safe limits for drinking water. At the same time
that aquifers are becoming more polluted, they are also being
drained dry from overuse or misuse.
Endangered Ecosystems
A number of North America's most diverse and productive
ecosystems are endangered. Besides virgin forests, which have
been virtually eliminated, wetlands, tall-grass prairies and oak
savannas have all declined precipitously during the past 200
years. The National Biological Service reports that the United
States has 126 "imperiled areas"--most of them in the eastern
half of the nation--that have lost more than 70 percent of their
natural habitats. The loss of vital habitats has translated into
species declines on an unprecedented scale. The U.S.
government has listed more than 950 plant and animal species
as endangered or threatened. Nearly 4,000 more (3 percent of all
North American species) are candidates for listing.'
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/worldvu.html
'... Bare dirt is desirable only where it occurs naturally.
Except for drier regions, this generally includes only small
percentages of the ground area. Overgrazing has probably
resulted in more actual ground area in the West being
converted to bare dirt sand, and gravel than to a vegetation
cover of increasers or invaders. Yet, range literature invariably
focuses on changes in species rather than overall reductions in
plant cover. This obscures the severity of the problem. ....'
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter3.html
> There are some badly overgrazed pastures that would take a good many years
> to recover but they can be rehabilitated with good mangament.
Suggest hemp for starters.
'It can be grown very densely to choke out weeds which
is ideal for organic farming as it needs little or no
spraying with insecticides either ( 50% of America's
pesticide use is in cotton farming ). Nor would it require
large quantities of fertilisers. Unlike cotton which exhausts
the soil, the roots and leaves of the plant, still high in
nutrients, can be ploughed back into the soil as a natural
fertiliser. In fact, hemp crops have been used in the past
to repair soil after erosion occurs. The roots actually help
to bind the soil together. '
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/not_just_a.htm
> I can show you a great deal more damge done by the plow than ever done by
> grazing.
.. and overgrazing? .. and for feed grain?
'On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss
averages 13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands
are eroding at a slower pace, at an average of 6 tons
per hectare per year. But erosion may exceed 100 tons
on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54 percent of U.S.
pasture land is being overgrazed. ..'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
Lotus
..
> > Lotus writes
..
> As long as the US dollar is strong almost any country with a weak currency
> can do well importing beef to the US.
How can you say Guatemala is 'doing well', considering the above? Who is
doing well in Guatemala exactly? The cattle ranchers? Politicians? The
country's 'elite'? Certainly not the rural majority, wildlife, forest.
[..]
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html
Lotus
Oz wrote:
>
> Lotus writes
> >
> >
> >Oz wrote:
> >>
> >> 1) This supports what larry was saying (mostly snipped).
> >
> >That the cause of hunger is political? Yes it is, where resources
> >haven't already been degraded even to the point of desertification as has
> >happened in many places due to overgrazing and intensive feed production.
> >Otherwise it is due to the concentration of resources in the hands of
> >the few, often for the sake of intensive livestock farming, as above.
>
> Name me a country in this situation where famine is happening, or
> happened recently, where war or criminal government is not the primary
> cause.
'Hunger' need not mean 'famine'. It can refer to chronic malnutrition
as a result of poverty. Name me a country where this is not happening.
> >> 2) The US really doesn't need beef, it has plenty of it's own.
> >
> >And vast expanses of the U.S have been severely degraded as a result.
>
> It still has more than enough of it's own, even if you are right.
Well then.. reduce production! Cease importing!
> >> 3) Guatamala needs money, although exporting beef to the US doesn't seem
> >> to me like the best way.
> >
> >True. Money for some- poverty for others.
>
> This is, of course, political (see above) and guatamalan's are not in a
> famine situation. Not a good example then.
You moved the goalpost to 'famine'. Do you imagine that an
*impoverished* people don't suffer from chronic hunger?
> >The following scenario has been and is very common, even in the west;
> >'..
> >The cattle boom of the 1960s brought even greater destruction to the
> >Guatemalan landscape and to traditional forms of agriculture. Heavily
> >funded by AID and multilateral development banks, beef production
> >accelerated deforestation and further *impoverished* much of the population.
> >The beef industry, exporting almost exclusively to the United States,
> >continues to destroy vast expanses of rainforest in the Peten, where
> >20 percent of Guatemala's 2.5 million head of cattle now graze. In other
> >areas, *peasants are thrown off even the most marginal lands* because
> >cattle can be raised where other exports cannot. Additional deforestation
> >results, as *people dispossessed from their land* move further up the
> >hillsides or migrate to the Peten. *Unemployment* has also risen,
> >because cattle ranching requires few workers and displaces other, more
> >labor-intensive agriculture. The increased marginalization and
> >*impoverishment of the rural majority* resulting from the expansion of
> >cattle ranching has led to the bitter irony that beef consumption in
> >Guatemala is less than half of what it was 10 years ago, according
> >to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report. *Beef has undermined the
> >livelihood of Guatemalans more than any other agro-export.* ..'
> >http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1991/01/mm0191_05.html
> >
> >Better sustainable
> >living for all, as it had been for millennia.
>
> Unfortunately populations in many countries are not the same as they
> were a few millennia ago. Fortunately ag production has kept up with
> demand.
At the expense of natural habitat, ecosystems, topsoil ..
Gordon Couger
According to rangemanagmet people I know and personal observation that is a
gross exaggeration. Our cattle number are so low we can hardly graze 70% of
our grasslands let alone over graze them.
The serious erosion was done in the first part of the last century prior to
WWII raising crops to feed people and horsed to pull equipment. There was no
terracing, land that should never have been plowed was put in crops and the
equipment was not big enough to stop wind and water erosion. Starting in
FDR's distraction a Soil Conservation Service started a project to reduce
soil erosion. It has been successful to a large degree. We are on the verge
of technology that will greatly reduce erosion form farm land. Reduced
tillage and no till can almost completely stop erosion and build organic
matter in the soil at a rate of .3% a year or more.
I am putting in a drip irrigation system for cotton so to be raised no till
and is the crop that is incresing the organic matter in the soil by 0.3% a
year when a winter wheat cover is planted. Cotton uses less in nutrients
from the soil per pound of product than almost any crops. Nearly all the
product is cellulose made of carbon. The only protein that use nitrogen is
in the seed. The problem with cotton is it leaves the land open to erosion
with out notill.
It's funny that well were land has never been farmed in northern Canada have
the same nitrates in about the same concentrations. If you want a real
nitrate problem plant a alfalfa crop and plow it down in the fall.
You need to look at modern faming and not the farming we were doing 30 or 40
years ago and read papers that are peer reviewed and published by
respectable journals.
As to wet lands they are being restored at the fastest rate in history. The
new farm bill has a huge amount of pork for wetlands restoration.
If you want to call me on facts get some that are current and have some
research behind them.
Lotus
That's rich, Gordon. What is the above exactly if not current research.
Back up *your* statements with research!
Jim Webster
>
>
> But have you measured topsoil loss?
>
> 'On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss
> averages 13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands
> are eroding at a slower pace, at an average of 6 tons
> per hectare per year. But erosion may exceed 100 tons
> on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54 percent of U.S.
> pasture land is being overgrazed. ..'
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
what you are ignoring is the fact that unless you are very skillful
ploughing and growing cereals is putting land at even greater risk of
topsoil loss than grazing it
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
Jim Webster
>
> Well then.. reduce production! Cease importing!
and watch Guatamala's economy collapse? Or would you want them to
diversify into cocaine which must be the US's major import from central
and southen armerica.
Jim Webster
> Gordon Couger wrote:
>> How can you say Guatemala is 'doing well', considering the above?
Who is
> doing well in Guatemala exactly? The cattle ranchers? Politicians?
The
> country's 'elite'? Certainly not the rural majority, wildlife,
forest.
of course rural populations don't do well. With first world governments
running a bread and circusses policy to keep urban populations passive
it is unlikely rural food producers will be wealthy.
After all, you are so full and well fed you have nothing better to worry
about than Guatemala.
I wonder how many Guatemalan peasants worry about the conditions or the
urban poor in the USA
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Larry Caldwell
> Can you show me these degraded areas? My family has been ranching since 1876
> and the land carries more cattle today than it did then. I would hardly call
> that degraded.
The most severely degraded agricultural land in the USA is Los Angeles
County. In 1930 in produced more food per acre than any other comparable
plot of ground in the USA. Now it produces nothing. It has been
completely destroyed.
Cows aren't the problem, people are.
Larry Caldwell
> The Cornell-China-Oxford Project on Nutrition, Health and
> Environment shows otherwise.
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/Dec95/asianpyramid.ssl.html
Now if they could just make the Chinese stick to that, they would be
happy as clams. Oops. Clams are a meat product, aren't they? Well,
maybe happy as artichokes?
Meanwhile, as soon as they can afford it the Chinese are going back to
eating meat daily.
Oz
>
>
>Oz wrote:
>>
>> Lotus writes
>> >
>> >
>> >Oz wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 1) This supports what larry was saying (mostly snipped).
>> >
>> >That the cause of hunger is political? Yes it is, where resources
>> >haven't already been degraded even to the point of desertification as has
>> >happened in many places due to overgrazing and intensive feed production.
>> >Otherwise it is due to the concentration of resources in the hands of
>> >the few, often for the sake of intensive livestock farming, as above.
>>
>> Name me a country in this situation where famine is happening, or
>> happened recently, where war or criminal government is not the primary
>> cause.
>
>'Hunger' need not mean 'famine'. It can refer to chronic malnutrition
>as a result of poverty. Name me a country where this is not happening.
Ok so:
1) You can't name me any country with famine.
2) You accept that poverty is the problem not food supplies.
Which is precisely what I said.
Thank you.
>> >> 2) The US really doesn't need beef, it has plenty of it's own.
>> >
>> >And vast expanses of the U.S have been severely degraded as a result.
>>
>> It still has more than enough of it's own, even if you are right.
>
>Well then.. reduce production! Cease importing!
Speak to your legislature. That's your problem not mine.
>> >> 3) Guatamala needs money, although exporting beef to the US doesn't seem
>> >> to me like the best way.
>> >
>> >True. Money for some- poverty for others.
>>
>> This is, of course, political (see above) and guatamalan's are not in a
>> famine situation. Not a good example then.
>
>You moved the goalpost to 'famine'. Do you imagine that an
>*impoverished* people don't suffer from chronic hunger?
They do not live in a country that is short of food.
Which is what I said.
>> Unfortunately populations in many countries are not the same as they
>> were a few millennia ago. Fortunately ag production has kept up with
>> demand.
>
>At the expense of natural habitat, ecosystems, topsoil ..
Of course. The solution to this is fewer people.
Larry Caldwell
> '..
> The cattle boom of the 1960s brought even greater destruction to the
> Guatemalan landscape and to traditional forms of agriculture. Heavily
> funded by AID and multilateral development banks, beef production
> accelerated deforestation and further impoverished much of the population.
> The beef industry, exporting almost exclusively to the United States,
> continues to destroy vast expanses of rainforest in the Peten, where
> 20 percent of Guatemala's 2.5 million head of cattle now graze. In other
> areas, peasants are thrown off even the most marginal lands because
> cattle can be raised where other exports cannot.
This piece, evidently written about 25 years ago, made me wonder what
current conditions in Guatemala are. Since ag info is easily available
on the web, I looked up Guatemala. The first thing I find is that the
government signed a peace treaty in 1996 that formally ended a 36 year
guerilla war that killed 100,000 people and created over 1 million
refugees.
A look at http://www.mapquest.com/atlas/?region=guatemal shows a country
with a $3900 per capita GDP, not bad for a Latin American nation. Arable
land covers just 12% of the country. Population is about 12.6 million.
http://www.info.agexpront.com/agriculture.htm deals with Guatemalan ag
exports, but does not mention beef exports.
"Agriculture is the driving force in Guatemala's economy, contributing
roughly a quarter of total output and providing 65% of export earnings.
Guatemala is a net agriculture exporter.
"Guatemala’s traditional agricultural export products include coffee,
sugar, bananas and to a lesser extent cardamom. These products comprise
nearly 50% of total exports. However, many of Guatemala's non-traditional
agricultural products, including fresh and processed fruits and
vegetables, cut flowers, foliage and plants and spices are emerging as
growing contributors to the economy. These non-traditional products play
an important role in Guatemala's prospects for year-to-year economic
expansion."
It sounds like Guatemala's agriculture employs quite a few "peasants".
"Peasant" is such an ugly, arrogant, hateful word isn't it? It means
"little brown subhuman farmer". It turns out that animal husbandry is a
key player in the effort to improve the nutrition of the Guatemalan
population.
Take a look at http://www.ifad.org/lrkm/region/pl/gt_154.htm to see some
of those "displaced peasants".
Next, I found the source article for the article that Lotus posted. It
is at
http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1991/01/mm0191_05.html, and
was written in 1991, five years before the guerilla war ended. It also
came out of Cal Berkeley. Why am I not surprised?
Perhaps the most balanced account is published by UNESCO at
http://www.unesco.org/mab/sustainable/3develop.htm#maya
The Petén is indeed in deep trouble. Here is the cause:
"These families are pushed into the Petén by heavily skewed patterns of
land ownership in other regions of Guatemala (a small percentage of the
population of Guatemala controls the country's most fertile lands) and by
Guatemala's rapid rate of population growth, currently around 3% per
year, with a doubling time of 24 years. As a result of these two factors,
Guatemala has an increasing number of rural families with no access to
fertile lands and nowhere to go except the tropical forest of the
northern Petén.
"The population of the Petén has grown from 25,000 to more than 500,000
during the last 30 years."
And there you have it. The root of the problem is overpopulation and
politics.
Oz
>But have you measured topsoil loss?
Similar figures are quoted for the UK.
I have no idea where they come from because in my situation you would
physically SEE where it would be deposited, and you don't.
Mind you it's worth remembering that 8" of soil over 1 ac weighs about
2000T.
rick etter
"Larry Caldwell" <lar...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.17653ddc3...@news.earthlink.net...
> In article <3CFA4646...@esatclear.ie>, lil...@esatclear.ie writes:
> > The following scenario has been and is very common, even in the west;
> > '..
> > The cattle boom of the 1960s brought even greater destruction to the
> > Guatemalan landscape and to traditional forms of agriculture. Heavily
> > funded by AID and multilateral development banks, beef production
> > accelerated deforestation and further impoverished much of the
population.
> > The beef industry, exporting almost exclusively to the United States,
> > continues to destroy vast expanses of rainforest in the Peten, where
> > 20 percent of Guatemala's 2.5 million head of cattle now graze. In other
> > areas, peasants are thrown off even the most marginal lands because
> > cattle can be raised where other exports cannot.
>
> This piece, evidently written about 25 years ago, made me wonder what
> current conditions in Guatemala are.
Hey, you don't want to confuse her with current facts. Afterall, she's used
these 'facts' for years. It's the basis of her rants and spews.
snippage...
Lotus
Larry Caldwell wrote:
>
> In article <3CFA4646...@esatclear.ie>, lil...@esatclear.ie writes:
> > The following scenario has been and is very common, even in the west;
> > '..
> > The cattle boom of the 1960s brought even greater destruction to the
> > Guatemalan landscape and to traditional forms of agriculture. Heavily
> > funded by AID and multilateral development banks, beef production
> > accelerated deforestation and further impoverished much of the population.
> > The beef industry, exporting almost exclusively to the United States,
> > continues to destroy vast expanses of rainforest in the Peten, where
> > 20 percent of Guatemala's 2.5 million head of cattle now graze. In other
> > areas, peasants are thrown off even the most marginal lands because
> > cattle can be raised where other exports cannot.
>
> This piece, evidently written about 25 years ago,
Don't you go on to say 1991?
Uhuh.
'The cattle boom of the 1960s brought even greater destruction to the
Guatemalan landscape and to traditional forms of agriculture. Heavily
funded by AID and multilateral development banks, beef production
accelerated deforestation and further impoverished much of the population.
The beef industry, exporting almost exclusively to the United States,
continues to destroy vast expanses of rainforest in the Peten, where
20 percent of Guatemala's 2.5 million head of cattle now graze. In other
areas, peasants are thrown off even the most marginal lands because
cattle can be raised where other exports cannot. Additional deforestation
results, as people dispossessed from their land move further up the
hillsides or migrate to the Peten. Unemployment has also risen, because
cattle ranching requires few workers and displaces other, more
labor-intensive agriculture. The increased marginalization and
impoverishment of the rural majority resulting from the expansion of
cattle ranching has led to the bitter irony that beef consumption in
Guatemala is less than half of what it was 10 years ago, according
to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report. Beef has undermined the
livelihood of Guatemalans more than any other agro-export. ..'
http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1991/01/mm0191_05.html
> and by
> Guatemala's rapid rate of population growth, currently around 3% per
> year, with a doubling time of 24 years. As a result of these two factors,
> Guatemala has an increasing number of rural families with no access to
> fertile lands and nowhere to go except the tropical forest of the
> northern Petén.
>
> "The population of the Petén has grown from 25,000 to more than 500,000
> during the last 30 years."
>
> And there you have it. The root of the problem is overpopulation and
> politics.
And the land and resource requirement of millions of cattle.
Lotus
Jim Webster wrote:
>
> Lotus <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:3CFB44F5...@esatclear.ie...
> >
> > Well then.. reduce production! Cease importing!
>
> and watch Guatamala's economy collapse? Or would you want them to
> diversify into cocaine which must be the US's major import from central
> and southen armerica.
What you are effectively saying is "let them eat cake".
Lotus
Oz wrote:
>
> Lotus writes
> >
> >
> >Oz wrote:
> >>
> >> Lotus writes
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Oz wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) This supports what larry was saying (mostly snipped).
> >> >
> >> >That the cause of hunger is political? Yes it is, where resources
> >> >haven't already been degraded even to the point of desertification as has
> >> >happened in many places due to overgrazing and intensive feed production.
> >> >Otherwise it is due to the concentration of resources in the hands of
> >> >the few, often for the sake of intensive livestock farming, as above.
> >>
> >> Name me a country in this situation where famine is happening, or
> >> happened recently, where war or criminal government is not the primary
> >> cause.
> >
> >'Hunger' need not mean 'famine'. It can refer to chronic malnutrition
> >as a result of poverty. Name me a country where this is not happening.
>
> Ok so:
>
> 1) You can't name me any country with famine.
Famine tends to happen as a result of drought/flood/war resulting in failure
of crops + the INABILITY of the population to freely cross national borders.
At one time people's were, if not nomadic per se, able to move freely from
stricken areas. Today they are restricted from doing so by lines on a map.
> 2) You accept that poverty is the problem not food supplies.
Poverty, in many cases, as illustrated, by concentration of resources
in the hands of the few. Cattle ranching is a predominant cause, as
livestock require hefty resources, meaning (people's/wildlife's) land,
yet, low intensive labor compared to sustainable plant food production.
> Which is precisely what I said.
>
> Thank you.
>
> >> >> 2) The US really doesn't need beef, it has plenty of it's own.
> >> >
> >> >And vast expanses of the U.S have been severely degraded as a result.
> >>
> >> It still has more than enough of it's own, even if you are right.
> >
> >Well then.. reduce production! Cease importing!
>
> Speak to your legislature. That's your problem not mine.
I'm in Ireland actually. The situation here isn't rosy either.
> >> >> 3) Guatamala needs money, although exporting beef to the US doesn't seem
> >> >> to me like the best way.
> >> >
> >> >True. Money for some- poverty for others.
> >>
> >> This is, of course, political (see above) and guatamalan's are not in a
> >> famine situation. Not a good example then.
> >
> >You moved the goalpost to 'famine'. Do you imagine that an
> >*impoverished* people don't suffer from chronic hunger?
>
> They do not live in a country that is short of food.
But they are dispossessed of their land. What happens then, without money?
> Which is what I said.
>
> >> Unfortunately populations in many countries are not the same as they
> >> were a few millennia ago. Fortunately ag production has kept up with
> >> demand.
> >
> >At the expense of natural habitat, ecosystems, topsoil ..
>
> Of course. The solution to this is fewer people.
Or fewer cattle!
Lotus
Jim Webster wrote:
>
> Lotus <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:3CFB4220...@esatclear.ie...
> >
> >
> > But have you measured topsoil loss?
> >
> > 'On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss
> > averages 13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands
> > are eroding at a slower pace, at an average of 6 tons
> > per hectare per year. But erosion may exceed 100 tons
> > on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54 percent of U.S.
> > pasture land is being overgrazed. ..'
> > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
>
> what you are ignoring is the fact that unless you are very skillful
> ploughing and growing cereals is putting land at even greater risk of
> topsoil loss than grazing it
What you are ignoring is the feed and forage requirement of livestock.
The ratio of feed/forage to flesh is ~20:1. 1:1 for plant foods grown
directly for human consumption, obviously. The proponents of livestock
will argue that animals will consume more of the plant- ignoring the
fact that that is where your new soil's organic matter is coming from.
Oz
Not at all. The word 'survive' is the one you are searching for.
Oz
>
>What you are ignoring is the feed and forage requirement of livestock.
>The ratio of feed/forage to flesh is ~20:1.
On extensive grass perhaps. Rather less for grain fed.
>1:1 for plant foods grown
>directly for human consumption, obviously.
Eh? What are you on about now?
>The proponents of livestock
>will argue that animals will consume more of the plant- ignoring the
>fact that that is where your new soil's organic matter is coming from.
No they will argue:
1) They are often reared where food from human constumption is
impossible as I have told you before (eg west of england). Please try to
keep up.
2) Dung is considered by most to be absolutely ideal for soil organic
matter replenishment. Hint: look up 'compost' and 'manure'.
Since you didn't know this you are obviously stunningly ignorant.
Oz
>> 1) You can't name me any country with famine.
>
>Famine tends to happen as a result of drought/flood/war resulting in failure
>of crops + the INABILITY of the population to freely cross national borders.
No. It only happens these days if food aid is PREVENTED from reaching
the starving. This only happens in war or criminal government. You are
an amazingly slow learner you know.
>At one time people's were, if not nomadic per se, able to move freely from
>stricken areas. Today they are restricted from doing so by lines on a map.
Hardly, except in cases of war or criminal government. In any vase they
are better to stay put and wait for the food aid. Except in the case of
war ....
They are rarely welcomed when the move from a famine area, to one where
food is short since it then goes and famine in the new area begins. Very
simple really.
>> 2) You accept that poverty is the problem not food supplies.
>
>Poverty, in many cases, as illustrated, by concentration of resources
>in the hands of the few. Cattle ranching is a predominant cause, as
>livestock require hefty resources, meaning (people's/wildlife's) land,
>yet, low intensive labor compared to sustainable plant food production.
So you still accept that the problem is poverty, not food supplies.
Why not just say 'yes' and go forward?
>> >> >> 2) The US really doesn't need beef, it has plenty of it's own.
>> >> >
>> >> >And vast expanses of the U.S have been severely degraded as a result.
>> >>
>> >> It still has more than enough of it's own, even if you are right.
>> >
>> >Well then.. reduce production! Cease importing!
>>
>> Speak to your legislature. That's your problem not mine.
>
>I'm in Ireland actually. The situation here isn't rosy either.
There is no famine in ireland and hasn't been for a very long time.
You could go to the states and become nationalised so you could
influence things if you felt really strongly about it.
>> >> >> 3) Guatamala needs money, although exporting beef to the US doesn't seem
>> >> >> to me like the best way.
>> >> >
>> >> >True. Money for some- poverty for others.
>> >>
>> >> This is, of course, political (see above) and guatamalan's are not in a
>> >> famine situation. Not a good example then.
>> >
>> >You moved the goalpost to 'famine'. Do you imagine that an
>> >*impoverished* people don't suffer from chronic hunger?
>>
>> They do not live in a country that is short of food.
>
>But they are dispossessed of their land.
So you say. Speak to the guatamalan government if you think it is
behaving in a criminal way and/or their laws need changing.
>What happens then, without money?
See above, or they get a job - picking okra perhaps?
>> >> Unfortunately populations in many countries are not the same as they
>> >> were a few millennia ago. Fortunately ag production has kept up with
>> >> demand.
>> >
>> >At the expense of natural habitat, ecosystems, topsoil ..
>>
>> Of course. The solution to this is fewer people.
>
>Or fewer cattle!
No, it's fewer people. You are only fussing about one small area of the
impact man's high population is having on the world rather than the
whole picture.
Jim Webster
> Famine tends to happen as a result of drought/flood/war resulting in
failure
> of crops + the INABILITY of the population to freely cross national
borders.
> At one time people's were, if not nomadic per se, able to move freely
from
> stricken areas. Today they are restricted from doing so by lines on a
map.
>
total rubbish.
Read the account of the run up to the Battle of Adrianople
Jim Webster
not at all. They are a country that has to trade. If you want to
destroy that countries economy, fine, just so long as you know you are
doing it
Jim Webster
>
> What you are ignoring is the feed and forage requirement of
livestock.
> The ratio of feed/forage to flesh is ~20:1. 1:1 for plant foods
grown
> directly for human consumption, obviously. The proponents of
livestock
> will argue that animals will consume more of the plant- ignoring the
> fact that that is where your new soil's organic matter is coming from.
duh
ever looked at what comes out the back end of a grazing animal?
Larry Caldwell
> > This piece, evidently written about 25 years ago,
> Don't you go on to say 1991?
That's when it was posted to the web. Since there wasn't any web before
1991, we don't know when it was written. The article itself doesn't have
a date.
[ ... ]
> > And there you have it. The root of the problem is overpopulation and
> > politics.
> And the land and resource requirement of millions of cattle.
About 2.5 million cattle, in a nation of 12.6 million people, and the
cattle are mostly being pastured on non-arable land in the mountains and
the desert south. The problem is too many people in an economy not
growing fast enough to accommodate them.
No matter what limits you place on livestock, any population growing at
3% a year will eventually outstrip all resources. It is only a matter of
time.
Gordon Couger
A very large part of this planet is not fit to farm and is grass land.
Humans do very poorly eating grass. However, ruminants convert grass in to
very high quality protein. Only in counties that have an excess of farmland
and an over production of grain so it is cheap enough that it is economical
to feed to cattle are cattle fed grain. In most of the world cattle take
very little food from the mouths of humans. They convert grass and brose
into meat.
Lotus
Oz wrote:
>
> Lotus writes
> >
> >What you are ignoring is the feed and forage requirement of livestock.
> >The ratio of feed/forage to flesh is ~20:1.
>
> On extensive grass perhaps. Rather less for grain fed.
Note that an 800-pound, medium-frame steer calf will eat
about 16.8 pounds of dry matter a day of a med'-concentrate
ration. He will gain about 3.0 pounds a day with daily
nutrients in his feed at the level shown here.
..
The balanced daily ration for the 800-pound yearling steer is:
Pounds
Corn 14.7
Soybean meal 0.52
Corn silage 10.00
Limestone 0.17
Total 25.83
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/ansci/g02052.htm
For every 25.83 lbs of feed, a steer will gain 3 lbs of weight
including bone mass. That's a ratio of 8.61:1 .
8.61 pounds of feed will produce 1 pound in animal weight,
including bone mass etc.
[On-the-hook:
This phrase refers to the hanging weight of a dressed beef carcass.
A typical 1200 lb. Holstein Steer from Geske Farms will yield
approximately 500-pounds of retail cuts from a dressed 700-pound
Choice carcass.]
http://www.geskefarms.com/terms.htm#T&E
So now we can work out what percentage of flesh we can eat.
(500/1200)x100 = 41% That's a ratio of 2.4:1
So, 8.61 pounds in animal feed will only produce 41% of a
pound of meat because the rest is bone mass etc.
8.61 pounds of feed divided by 41% of a pound of meat = 20.66
The feed to beef ratio is 20.66:1
20.66 pounds of feed for 1 pound of eatable meat.
> >1:1 for plant foods grown
> >directly for human consumption, obviously.
>
> Eh? What are you on about now?
You're not cycling ~20 pounds of plant matter through cattle
for 1 pound of meat. 1 pound of plant food = 1 pound plant food.
> >The proponents of livestock
> >will argue that animals will consume more of the plant- ignoring the
> >fact that that is where your new soil's organic matter is coming from.
>
> No they will argue:
>
> 1) They are often reared where food from human constumption is
> impossible as I have told you before (eg west of england).
Impossible is a big word. Not suited to intensive production, maybe.
But if you can turn an old slate quarry into a showcase sustainable
garden, you can elsewhere in the west of England likewise. Native
trees, including nut and fruit trees, will grow in 'marginal' areas,
as will berry bushes.
> Please try to keep up.
>
> 2) Dung is considered by most to be absolutely ideal for soil organic
> matter replenishment. Hint: look up 'compost' and 'manure'.
I've nothing against well treated domestic animals, as long as they
are kept in a manner in which they are very well cared for, and
allowed to live out their natural lifespan.
Lotus
Oz wrote:
>
> Lotus writes
> >
> >Jim Webster wrote:
> >>
> >> Lotus <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> >> news:3CFB44F5...@esatclear.ie...
> >> >
> >> > Well then.. reduce production! Cease importing!
> >>
> >> and watch Guatamala's economy collapse? Or would you want them to
> >> diversify into cocaine which must be the US's major import from central
> >> and southen armerica.
> >
> >What you are effectively saying is "let them eat cake".
>
> Not at all. The word 'survive' is the one you are searching for.
No. Live as they did before cattle barons shoved them off of their land.
Lotus
Oz wrote:
>
> Lotus writes
[snip famine- but consider that desertification, drought
and land degradation are directly caused by overgrazing.
Many conflicts are over land and resources].
> >> 2) You accept that poverty is the problem not food supplies.
> >
> >Poverty, in many cases, as illustrated, by concentration of resources
> >in the hands of the few. Cattle ranching is a predominant cause, as
> >livestock require hefty resources, meaning (people's/wildlife's) land,
> >yet, low intensive labor compared to sustainable plant food production.
>
> So you still accept that the problem is poverty, not food supplies.
>
> Why not just say 'yes' and go forward?
I have said so. Yet in order to keep up with 'food supplies'
intensive farming, specifically for livestock, has resulted
in displacement of people from their land, destruction of
billions of hectares of natural habitat / ecosystem, wildlife,
and soil erosion / desertification in many areas + pollution.
> >> >> >> 2) The US really doesn't need beef, it has plenty of it's own.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And vast expanses of the U.S have been severely degraded as a result.
> >> >>
> >> >> It still has more than enough of it's own, even if you are right.
> >> >
> >> >Well then.. reduce production! Cease importing!
> >>
> >> Speak to your legislature. That's your problem not mine.
> >
> >I'm in Ireland actually. The situation here isn't rosy either.
>
> There is no famine in ireland and hasn't been for a very long time.
But there is a lack of wholesome organic vegetables and fruit.
Major capital is put into intensive livestock production though.
Land prices have increased as a result of demand for acreage,
and land accumulated for cattle by bigger farmers from what
were formerly small family holdings. Same as in many places.
> You could go to the states and become nationalised so you could
> influence things if you felt really strongly about it.
No thanks.
> >> >> >> 3) Guatamala needs money, although exporting beef to the US doesn't seem
> >> >> >> to me like the best way.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >True. Money for some- poverty for others.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is, of course, political (see above) and guatamalan's are not in a
> >> >> famine situation. Not a good example then.
> >> >
> >> >You moved the goalpost to 'famine'. Do you imagine that an
> >> >*impoverished* people don't suffer from chronic hunger?
> >>
> >> They do not live in a country that is short of food.
> >
> >But they are dispossessed of their land.
>
> So you say. Speak to the guatamalan government if you think it is
> behaving in a criminal way and/or their laws need changing.
O.K.
> >What happens then, without money?
>
> See above, or they get a job - picking okra perhaps?
Be sure let the poor dispossessed Guatemalans know that.
> >> >> Unfortunately populations in many countries are not the same as they
> >> >> were a few millennia ago. Fortunately ag production has kept up with
> >> >> demand.
> >> >
> >> >At the expense of natural habitat, ecosystems, topsoil ..
> >>
> >> Of course. The solution to this is fewer people.
> >
> >Or fewer cattle!
>
> No, it's fewer people. You are only fussing about one small area of the
> impact man's high population is having on the world rather than the
> whole picture.
I'm 'fussing' about the impact the high population of livestock is having
on the world. Talk about slow learners!
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html
Lotus
Jim Webster wrote:
>
> Lotus <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:3CFCA49E...@esatclear.ie...
> >
> >
> > Jim Webster wrote:
> > >
> > > Lotus <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> > > news:3CFB44F5...@esatclear.ie...
> > > >
> > > > Well then.. reduce production! Cease importing!
> > >
> > > and watch Guatamala's economy collapse? Or would you want them to
> > > diversify into cocaine which must be the US's major import from
> central
> > > and southen armerica.
> >
> > What you are effectively saying is "let them eat cake".
>
> not at all. They are a country that has to trade.
The rural population need their land to grow food to eat themselves.
> If you want to
> destroy that countries economy, fine, just so long as you know you are
> doing it
Seems to me that you have been doing it by buying the cattle the
raising of which crowded out the people off of their land.
Lotus
Jim Webster wrote:
>
> Lotus <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:3CFCA600...@esatclear.ie...
> >
> > What you are ignoring is the feed and forage requirement of
> livestock.
> > The ratio of feed/forage to flesh is ~20:1. 1:1 for plant foods
> grown
> > directly for human consumption, obviously. The proponents of
> livestock
> > will argue that animals will consume more of the plant- ignoring the
> > fact that that is where your new soil's organic matter is coming from.
>
> duh
>
> ever looked at what comes out the back end of a grazing animal?
Grazing animals (herbivores) digest (break down) cellulose.
'what goes in' : 'what comes out' ratio handy anyone?
Lotus
Larry Caldwell wrote:
>
> In article <3CFCA48B...@esatclear.ie>, lil...@esatclear.ie writes:
[..]
>
> > > And there you have it. The root of the problem is overpopulation and
> > > politics.
>
> > And the land and resource requirement of millions of cattle.
>
> About 2.5 million cattle, in a nation of 12.6 million people, and the
> cattle are mostly being pastured on non-arable land in the mountains and
> the desert south. The problem is too many people in an economy not
> growing fast enough to accommodate them.
You wrote;
> "These families are pushed into the Petén by heavily skewed patterns of
> land ownership in other regions of Guatemala (a small percentage of the
> population of Guatemala controls the country's most fertile lands)
'The cattle boom of the 1960s brought even greater destruction to the
Guatemalan landscape and to traditional forms of agriculture. Heavily
funded by AID and multilateral development banks, beef production
accelerated deforestation and further impoverished much of the population.
The beef industry, exporting almost exclusively to the United States,
continues to destroy vast expanses of rainforest in the Peten, where
20 percent of Guatemala's 2.5 million head of cattle now graze. In other
areas, peasants are thrown off even the most marginal lands because
cattle can be raised where other exports cannot. Additional deforestation
results, as people dispossessed from their land move further up the
hillsides or migrate to the Peten. Unemployment has also risen, because
cattle ranching requires few workers and displaces other, more
labor-intensive agriculture. The increased marginalization and
impoverishment of the rural majority resulting from the expansion of
cattle ranching has led to the bitter irony that beef consumption in
Guatemala is less than half of what it was 10 years ago, according
to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report. Beef has undermined the
livelihood of Guatemalans more than any other agro-export. ..'
http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1991/01/mm0191_05.html
> No matter what limits you place on livestock, any population growing at
> 3% a year will eventually outstrip all resources. It is only a matter of
> time.
Good idea to stop breeding resource wasting cattle now then.
Lotus
Gordon Couger wrote:
>
> "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:3CFCA600...@esatclear.ie...
> >
> >
> > Jim Webster wrote:
> > >
> > > Lotus <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> > > news:3CFB4220...@esatclear.ie...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But have you measured topsoil loss?
> > > >
> > > > 'On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss
> > > > averages 13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands
> > > > are eroding at a slower pace, at an average of 6 tons
> > > > per hectare per year. But erosion may exceed 100 tons
> > > > on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54 percent of U.S.
> > > > pasture land is being overgrazed. ..'
> > > > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
> > >
> > > what you are ignoring is the fact that unless you are very skillful
> > > ploughing and growing cereals is putting land at even greater risk of
> > > topsoil loss than grazing it
> >
> > What you are ignoring is the feed and forage requirement of livestock.
> > The ratio of feed/forage to flesh is ~20:1. 1:1 for plant foods grown
> > directly for human consumption, obviously. The proponents of livestock
> > will argue that animals will consume more of the plant- ignoring the
> > fact that that is where your new soil's organic matter is coming from.
>
> A very large part of this planet is not fit to farm and is grass land.
'not fit to farm'? How, in what way? Vast expanses of woodland
and forests have been destroyed in order to graze livestock.
Reforesting with nut and fruit trees amongst other native species
is what is needed, alongside small scale sustainable farming.
> Humans do very poorly eating grass. However, ruminants convert grass in to
> very high quality protein.
As humans do plant foods.
> Only in counties that have an excess of farmland
> and an over production of grain so it is cheap enough that it is economical
> to feed to cattle are cattle fed grain. In most of the world cattle take
> very little food from the mouths of humans. They convert grass and brose
> into meat.
'According to Worldwatch Institute, altogether roughly 1/3 of the
plant food grown on Earth that could be eaten by people is instead
fed to livestock. According to world food and agriculture expert
Frances Moore Lappe, the figure is 40%-50%.
This food -- grain, legumes, fruit, vegetables, nuts, and seeds
(even animal products) -- loses approximately 80%-90% of its food
value to humans when cycled through livestock rather than being
eaten directly by people. In other words, we are being consumed
by the livestock we think are sustaining us.'
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html
'President of the General Assembly, Harri Holkeri of Finland,
said that hunger was a consequence of a wider problem, namely
that the rich, representing 5 per cent of the world's population,
consumed some 45 per cent of all meat and fish. He also said that
while women produced the bulk of the world's food, they consumed
the smallest portion.'
http://www.europaworld.org/issue7/howdowemeethungtarg31100.htm
Nearly half of all cropland is used to grow food for livestock.
Dutch
[..]>
> 'President of the General Assembly, Harri Holkeri of Finland,
> said that hunger was a consequence of a wider problem, namely
> that the rich, representing 5 per cent of the world's population,
> consumed some 45 per cent of all meat and fish. He also said that
> while women produced the bulk of the world's food, they consumed
> the smallest portion.'
5% of the world's population has most of the wealth. what do you expect?
> http://www.europaworld.org/issue7/howdowemeethungtarg31100.htm
Have you had a close look at that web page?
> Nearly half of all cropland is used to grow food for livestock.
So what? The other half grows enough food to feed the hungry of the world,
what are we doing to distribute it to them? Would we be likely to do so if
there were no meat?
Jim Webster
> No. Live as they did before cattle barons shoved them off of their
land.
except you have totally ignored those postings which describe current
conditions
Jim Webster
>
> > not at all. They are a country that has to trade.
>
> The rural population need their land to grow food to eat themselves.
no the rural population need a large enough income so they can enjoy a
decent standard of living. In developed countries the rural populations
do not grow their own food, the live of a subsistance farming peasant is
not envied and is not one than anyone who can see the alternatives ever
craves.
>
> > If you want to
> > destroy that countries economy, fine, just so long as you know you
are
> > doing it
>
> Seems to me that you have been doing it by buying the cattle the
> raising of which crowded out the people off of their land.
except that, according to the other post, there is damn all trade in
cattle
Jim Webster
> You're not cycling ~20 pounds of plant matter through cattle
> for 1 pound of meat. 1 pound of plant food = 1 pound plant food.
sure but only to rumen bacteria, not much else can live off grass
>
> > >The proponents of livestock
> > >will argue that animals will consume more of the plant- ignoring
the
> > >fact that that is where your new soil's organic matter is coming
from.
> >
> > No they will argue:
> >
> > 1) They are often reared where food from human constumption is
> > impossible as I have told you before (eg west of england).
>
> Impossible is a big word. Not suited to intensive production, maybe.
> But if you can turn an old slate quarry into a showcase sustainable
> garden, you can elsewhere in the west of England likewise. Native
> trees, including nut and fruit trees, will grow in 'marginal' areas,
> as will berry bushes.
not suited to any sort of arable at all, climate all wrong
Jim Webster
> Grazing animals (herbivores) digest (break down) cellulose.
no, rumen bacteria break down cellulose, no mammal can handle cellulose
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Jim Webster
>
>
> Gordon Couger wrote land.
>
> 'not fit to farm'? How, in what way? Vast expanses of woodland
> and forests have been destroyed in order to graze livestock.
> Reforesting with nut and fruit trees amongst other native species
> is what is needed, alongside small scale sustainable farming.
>
who is going to dedicate their life to hand picking nuts? you
volunteering?
> > Humans do very poorly eating grass. However, ruminants convert grass
in to
> > very high quality protein.
>
> As humans do plant foods.
no humans only convert high quality plant foods,
how long can a human live on grass or lettuce?
Oz
1) There are an awful lot more of them.
2) That's for the Guatemalan govt to deal with.
3) Generally people in SA move to the towns because they prefer it to
the countryside.
Oz
>
>
>Oz wrote:
>>
>> Lotus writes
>
>[snip famine- but consider that desertification, drought
>and land degradation are directly caused by overgrazing.
>Many conflicts are over land and resources].
>
>> >> 2) You accept that poverty is the problem not food supplies.
>> >
>> >Poverty, in many cases, as illustrated, by concentration of resources
>> >in the hands of the few. Cattle ranching is a predominant cause, as
>> >livestock require hefty resources, meaning (people's/wildlife's) land,
>> >yet, low intensive labor compared to sustainable plant food production.
>>
>> So you still accept that the problem is poverty, not food supplies.
>>
>> Why not just say 'yes' and go forward?
>
>I have said so. Yet in order to keep up with 'food supplies'
>intensive farming, specifically for livestock, has resulted
>in displacement of people from their land, destruction of
>billions of hectares of natural habitat / ecosystem, wildlife,
>and soil erosion / desertification in many areas + pollution.
Surprising that england is such a green and pleasant land and nobody was
'forced off', they just preferred factories and cities.
And I have to say that travelling other places in the world I find it on
the whole much the same.
Of course natural ecosystems have been destroyed in order to feed the
human population. This is inevitable and the solution is equally
obvious:
1) Fewer people.
2) More intensive use of existing agricultural land thus reducing the
need to convert more original ecosystems into farming.
>> >I'm in Ireland actually. The situation here isn't rosy either.
>>
>> There is no famine in ireland and hasn't been for a very long time.
>
>But there is a lack of wholesome organic vegetables and fruit.
Aren't you already growing your own?
Or don't you believe in practicing what you preach?
>Major capital is put into intensive livestock production though.
Hardly surprising given ireland's climate and topology.
>Land prices have increased as a result of demand for acreage,
>and land accumulated for cattle by bigger farmers from what
>were formerly small family holdings. Same as in many places.
That's because prices are so low small family holdings cannot support a
family. That's a fact, by the way.
>> >What happens then, without money?
>>
>> See above, or they get a job - picking okra perhaps?
>
>Be sure let the poor dispossessed Guatemalans know that.
I'm sure they know better than you do how to earn a living there.
>> No, it's fewer people. You are only fussing about one small area of the
>> impact man's high population is having on the world rather than the
>> whole picture.
>
>I'm 'fussing' about the impact the high population of livestock is having
>on the world. Talk about slow learners!
You wouldn't be a vegetarian would you?
Oz
>
>The rural population need their land to grow food to eat themselves.
What, you mean like in the UK?
Oz
>So, 8.61 pounds in animal feed will only produce 41% of a
>pound of meat because the rest is bone mass etc.
>8.61 pounds of feed divided by 41% of a pound of meat = 20.66
>The feed to beef ratio is 20.66:1
>20.66 pounds of feed for 1 pound of eatable meat.
I guess you don;t eat tripe or beef soup (bones) and offals then?
And don't wear leather shoes.
>> >1:1 for plant foods grown
>> >directly for human consumption, obviously.
>>
>> Eh? What are you on about now?
>
>You're not cycling ~20 pounds of plant matter through cattle
>for 1 pound of meat. 1 pound of plant food = 1 pound plant food.
Unfortunately you can't grow vegetables on a welsh hillside.
But you can grow grass.
>> >The proponents of livestock
>> >will argue that animals will consume more of the plant- ignoring the
>> >fact that that is where your new soil's organic matter is coming from.
>>
>> No they will argue:
>>
>> 1) They are often reared where food from human constumption is
>> impossible as I have told you before (eg west of england).
>
>Impossible is a big word. Not suited to intensive production, maybe.
>But if you can turn an old slate quarry into a showcase sustainable
>garden, you can elsewhere in the west of England likewise. Native
>trees, including nut and fruit trees, will grow in 'marginal' areas,
>as will berry bushes.
Have you tried growing your own food?
Have you tried earning your living growing food?
I suggest you have a go before making daft statements.
>> 2) Dung is considered by most to be absolutely ideal for soil organic
>> matter replenishment. Hint: look up 'compost' and 'manure'.
>
>I've nothing against well treated domestic animals, as long as they
>are kept in a manner in which they are very well cared for, and
>allowed to live out their natural lifespan.
The natural lifetime of cattle is (by definition) two years. That is in
nature with a stable population and a cow having a calf a year then one
animal out of two (including the bull) must die each year. Hence two
year average lifetime. Farmed cattle average significantly more than
that.
For sheep (with twins) of course it's only one year.
Do not even think about rabbits or poultry.
It is illegal in the UK NOT to care properly for you animals, as well as
being essential for productive livestock.
Gordon Couger
The soil is too thin, not enough rain, the slope is too steep the growing
seaon too short. Arable land sutible for farming only makes up a small part
of the world. See:
http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2002/tables/table3-1.pdf. A great dead of
the land left can raise cattle, sheep or goats. Converting grass, weeds and
leaves that are for all practical purpousess indigestable for humas and turn
it to high quaity protien.
In countries like the USA where we have a great deal of land/per/capata and
the price of corn is so cheap it can be burn in stoves becuse it is cheaper
than wood, coal, oil or propane It is senable to feed it to cattle. In a
country that has a small amount of farm land\capati it is foolish to feed
crops to cattle except for what is left after harvest such as corn stalks so
that can be tuned into protien insted of turned under or burned.
We do not live in a wold with no borders. If I Have 3 car loads of wheat in
storage I have to sell them to pay my creditors and every on along the way
has to be paid to meet their expenses. 30,000 pounds of wheat does not go
from Oklahoma to Africa for free. It's a hard fact but if the people had
money to by food they wouldn't be starving.
The answere is not to export food to them but to develop crops that they can
grow that will feed them so it is much more diffficult to steal them and
sell them for a profit.
It is a shame that there are hungery people in the world and I hold crops
that are so cheap I can't afford to raise them with out assistance. But were
are the people to buy these crops and freight them to the people that need
them, unload them and carry the food to the hungry people and guard the food
so they are sure to get it.
So the cow that eats grain is the US is not eating some ones food in India.
The best feed lots get 1 pound of steer for 6.6 pound of feed at rates of 4
pounds a day. A pound of hog takes a little less than 3 pounds of feed,
chicking a little over one and a pound of catfish can be grown on from .1 to
.6 pounds of feed depending on how fast you want them to grow.
I have never given food for aid. I have contributed to giving seed, training
and techonoldgy. I can't feed the poor fellow in Ethiopia or Sudan but I can
help him feed him self. In the case of Ethiopia I worked a year with a
fellow trying to find a better point for the traditional wooden plow. We
were moderatly succusful. We developed a point that for 3 day after a rain
would work 1.5 times as much ground as the regular point. On the forth day
the ground got too hard and they had to go back to the old point. The only
other way we can give the third world is to send him genetics that will
yeild better and more consistant crops in his area.
Michael Saunby
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
news:admuq8$tlf$6...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Lotus <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:3CFEB160...@esatclear.ie...
> >
> > > not at all. They are a country that has to trade.
> >
> > The rural population need their land to grow food to eat themselves.
>
> no the rural population need a large enough income so they can enjoy a
> decent standard of living. In developed countries the rural populations
> do not grow their own food, the live of a subsistance farming peasant is
> not envied and is not one than anyone who can see the alternatives ever
> craves.
>
But it is the most common lifestyle on the planet and can probably be described
as the natural state for a human being in the 21st century. Although peasant
farming families now only make up 40% of the global population they do represent
about 50% of the population of developing countries. More significant is that
of the remaining 60% of the human population only 20% are better off than
subsistence farming families with another 40% being worse off.
So, although being a peasant might not be what people in the developed world
might wish for, there are twice as many folks who would see it as a distinct
improvement!
Shit, now someone is bound to want evidence for these figures. Here's a starting
point http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/Y1860E/y1860e03.htm#P13_4802
But it requires a little knowledge of what the global population is, roughly 6
billion, so the population of the "developed" world is about 1 billion. Factor
in the wealthy of the developing (is that really likely?) world and they
represent about 20% of the global population. Easy!
Now fix it! Though it's worth saying that I've yet to meet a peasant who
wasn't a decent person - so it's good for the soul at least.
Michael Saunby
Fenris Wolf
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>>I have said so. Yet in order to keep up with 'food supplies'
>>intensive farming, specifically for livestock, has resulted
>>in displacement of people from their land, destruction of
>>billions of hectares of natural habitat / ecosystem, wildlife,
>>and soil erosion / desertification in many areas + pollution.
>
>Surprising that england is such a green and pleasant land and nobody was
>'forced off', they just preferred factories and cities.
Depends when you are talking about. Most of the countryside of England
had been depopulated by the enclosure awards (1) and the people
displaced to the cities as cheap factory labour long before the
intensification of agriculture. Those who didn't go voluntarily were
likely to have been transported for minor crimes such as trapping a
rabbit to feed their starving families. So when agriculture started
intensifying all that was needed was to cut the workforce and replace
them with machinery. There can be no direct comparison with a peasant
population displaced from the land as happens today in developing
countries.
(1) The enclosure awards were usually private acts, but sometimes
public ones, in which land previously farmed socially was divided
between large landowners who could provide proof of some claim. People
who had previously had rights to graze a cow or some geese on common
land were dispossessed of these rights. Sometimes a small portion of
land would be put aside as allotments for the labouring poor, but in
general people lost the means of self sufficiency. The mood of the
times can perhaps be summed up in the following anonymous rhyme.
The law locks up the man or woman,
That steals the goose from off the common,
But leaves the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.
--
Fenris Wolf
RSPCA-Animadversion
http://www.webtribe.net/a/animadversion/animadversion.htm
Child Rescue
Oz
>In article <hxbqhLDBfw$8E...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>I have said so. Yet in order to keep up with 'food supplies'
>>>intensive farming, specifically for livestock, has resulted
>>>in displacement of people from their land, destruction of
>>>billions of hectares of natural habitat / ecosystem, wildlife,
>>>and soil erosion / desertification in many areas + pollution.
>>
>>Surprising that england is such a green and pleasant land and nobody was
>>'forced off', they just preferred factories and cities.
>
>Depends when you are talking about. Most of the countryside of England
>had been depopulated by the enclosure awards (1)
Actually the enclosure awards split common land (typically strip
farming) between the various people entitled to them in the ratio the
were entitled to them. The early part of the enclosures people tended to
take their share and you ended up with lots of very small fields. Later
the wealthier people tended to buy out the smaller ones (whether these
people actually did any farming varied). Generally it probably seemed a
better bet to sell your entitlement to a few acres and move to the city.
>and the people
>displaced to the cities as cheap factory labour long before the
>intensification of agriculture.
The people who had no land (by then the majority in most places) moved
to the city because there was permanent work there unlike in the
countryside where work was hard, low paid and seasonal. Most were hired
by the day (as still happens in india for example).
>Those who didn't go voluntarily were
>likely to have been transported for minor crimes such as trapping a
>rabbit to feed their starving families.
Those entitled to a strip were rarely starving (although far from
wealthy).
>So when agriculture started
>intensifying all that was needed was to cut the workforce and replace
>them with machinery.
Actually the other way round (something that continues to this day).
Lack of labour forced farmers to use machinery.
>There can be no direct comparison with a peasant
>population displaced from the land as happens today in developing
>countries.
Hmmm. Very similar in fact. Plus ca change.
>(1) The enclosure awards were usually private acts, but sometimes
>public ones, in which land previously farmed socially was divided
>between large landowners who could provide proof of some claim. People
>who had previously had rights to graze a cow or some geese on common
>land were dispossessed of these rights.
This simply isn't so. Common land is land held in common specifically by
those entitled to use it (as it is to this day) and is NOT land where
anyone can graze stock. This is a popular misconception and one that
*really annoys* people with commons rights.
>Sometimes a small portion of
>land would be put aside as allotments for the labouring poor, but in
>general people lost the means of self sufficiency. The mood of the
>times can perhaps be summed up in the following anonymous rhyme.
Nice idea, pity it's quite wrong.
>The law locks up the man or woman,
>That steals the goose from off the common,
>But leaves the greater villain loose,
>That steals the common from the goose.
That's because the goose isn't everyone's goose, but belongs to ONE
individual with grazing rights. Typical complete lack of understanding
of what commons are.
And yes I do know people with commons rights.
Fenris Wolf
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>Fenris Wolf writes
>>In article <hxbqhLDBfw$8E...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
>><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>I have said so. Yet in order to keep up with 'food supplies'
>>>>intensive farming, specifically for livestock, has resulted
>>>>in displacement of people from their land, destruction of
>>>>billions of hectares of natural habitat / ecosystem, wildlife,
>>>>and soil erosion / desertification in many areas + pollution.
>>>
>>>Surprising that england is such a green and pleasant land and nobody was
>>>'forced off', they just preferred factories and cities.
>>
>>Depends when you are talking about. Most of the countryside of England
>>had been depopulated by the enclosure awards (1)
>
>Actually the enclosure awards split common land (typically strip
>farming) between the various people entitled to them in the ratio the
>were entitled to them.
Depends how you rate entitlement. People who had originally had the
right to graze a cow could end up with nothing. What started off as a
communal village ended up with land being fenced off from most of them.
>The early part of the enclosures people tended to
>take their share and you ended up with lots of very small fields. Later
>the wealthier people tended to buy out the smaller ones (whether these
>people actually did any farming varied). Generally it probably seemed a
>better bet to sell your entitlement to a few acres and move to the city.
Haven't yet seen an award which didn't give the vast majority of the
land to a few main landowners. How were people who couldn't even read
and write to lodge claims? No legal aid back then <g>
>
>>and the people
>>displaced to the cities as cheap factory labour long before the
>>intensification of agriculture.
>
>The people who had no land (by then the majority in most places) moved
>to the city because there was permanent work there unlike in the
>countryside where work was hard, low paid and seasonal. Most were hired
>by the day (as still happens in india for example).
What permanent work? When this all started they still sent children
down mines and up chimneys. They employed children and women in the
factories because they cost less than men.
>
>>Those who didn't go voluntarily were
>>likely to have been transported for minor crimes such as trapping a
>>rabbit to feed their starving families.
>
>Those entitled to a strip were rarely starving (although far from
>wealthy).
They were also in the minority.
>
>>So when agriculture started
>>intensifying all that was needed was to cut the workforce and replace
>>them with machinery.
>
>Actually the other way round (something that continues to this day).
>Lack of labour forced farmers to use machinery.
Not at the beginning of the agrarian revolution. I suppose you could
say that the real intensification of agriculture in Britain happened
then, and the more recent changes have just been variations or further
streamlining of the system. The problem with the introduction of
machinery is that once someone gets a machine that does the work of 10
men for half the cost, either everyone else gets that machine or they
cannot compete. There is no going back once you open Pandora's box.
>
>>There can be no direct comparison with a peasant
>>population displaced from the land as happens today in developing
>>countries.
>
>Hmmm. Very similar in fact. Plus ca change.
You would have to compare the time of the enclosures with today's 3rd
world displacements, not anything currently happening in the UK.
>
>>(1) The enclosure awards were usually private acts, but sometimes
>>public ones, in which land previously farmed socially was divided
>>between large landowners who could provide proof of some claim. People
>>who had previously had rights to graze a cow or some geese on common
>>land were dispossessed of these rights.
>
>This simply isn't so. Common land is land held in common specifically by
>those entitled to use it (as it is to this day) and is NOT land where
>anyone can graze stock. This is a popular misconception and one that
>*really annoys* people with commons rights.
The restricted and shrinking rights to commons today are nothing like
commons back then when it is doubtful that anyone in the village would
have been refused the right to use the common.
>
>>Sometimes a small portion of
>>land would be put aside as allotments for the labouring poor, but in
>>general people lost the means of self sufficiency. The mood of the
>>times can perhaps be summed up in the following anonymous rhyme.
>
>Nice idea, pity it's quite wrong.
>
>>The law locks up the man or woman,
>>That steals the goose from off the common,
>>But leaves the greater villain loose,
>>That steals the common from the goose.
>
>That's because the goose isn't everyone's goose, but belongs to ONE
>individual with grazing rights. Typical complete lack of understanding
>of what commons are.
>
>And yes I do know people with commons rights.
>
So do I. Been farming for years. And 20 - 30 years back you would
still find resentment among people who believed they had lost rights
over particular pieces of land. Back in the '60's there was a lot of
ill feeling when some of the local moorland was sold for forestry and
none of the locals knew it was anything other than common (some still
used to cut peat on it here - West Wales) They had no idea the common
had been enclosed (in name only).
Jim Webster
Fenris Wolf <Fen...@reality8.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vMNPwKB4u9
> Depends how you rate entitlement. People who had originally had the
> right to graze a cow could end up with nothing. What started off as a
> communal village ended up with land being fenced off from most of
them.
remember the right to graze a cow was always conditional on fulfilling
obligations, rights were never "free"
>
> >The early part of the enclosures people tended to
> >take their share and you ended up with lots of very small fields.
Later
> >the wealthier people tended to buy out the smaller ones (whether
these
> >people actually did any farming varied). Generally it probably seemed
a
> >better bet to sell your entitlement to a few acres and move to the
city.
>
> Haven't yet seen an award which didn't give the vast majority of the
> land to a few main landowners. How were people who couldn't even read
> and write to lodge claims? No legal aid back then <g>
surprising number of deaths at the time, land agents and landowners who
went too far.
> >
> >>and the people
> >>displaced to the cities as cheap factory labour long before the
> >>intensification of agriculture.
> >
> >The people who had no land (by then the majority in most places)
moved
> >to the city because there was permanent work there unlike in the
> >countryside where work was hard, low paid and seasonal. Most were
hired
> >by the day (as still happens in india for example).
>
> What permanent work? When this all started they still sent children
> down mines and up chimneys. They employed children and women in the
> factories because they cost less than men.
nothing changes does it. The general population still happily pay rock
bottom prices for goods produced by child labour or in prison camps.
>
> >
> >>Those who didn't go voluntarily were
> >>likely to have been transported for minor crimes such as trapping a
> >>rabbit to feed their starving families.
> >
> >Those entitled to a strip were rarely starving (although far from
> >wealthy).
>
> They were also in the minority.
those who were in danger of starving on a regular basis were jobbing
day labourers. They were the first to abandon the rural areas for the
relative prosperity of the industrial revolution with its year round
work. Prior to the 19th century, starvation was a risk for virtually any
rural dweller.
>
> >
> >>So when agriculture started
> >>intensifying all that was needed was to cut the workforce and
replace
> >>them with machinery.
> >
> >Actually the other way round (something that continues to this day).
> >Lack of labour forced farmers to use machinery.
>
> Not at the beginning of the agrarian revolution. I suppose you could
> say that the real intensification of agriculture in Britain happened
> then, and the more recent changes have just been variations or further
> streamlining of the system. The problem with the introduction of
> machinery is that once someone gets a machine that does the work of 10
> men for half the cost, either everyone else gets that machine or they
> cannot compete. There is no going back once you open Pandora's box.
you have your timing all wrong. The big revolution in the employed
labour was the introduction of mechanisation after the second world war.
You had a situation where a lot of men had got off the land into the
army and had travelled, combined with an opening up of new urban jobs
and improved housing. With the better working conditions, shorter hours,
better housing conditions, better wages, people flocked to the towns.
This is why the common agricultural policy was brought in, the gap
between urban and rural wages and working conditions had grown so large
that it was unsustainable.
> >
> >>There can be no direct comparison with a peasant
> >>population displaced from the land as happens today in developing
> >>countries.
> >
> >Hmmm. Very similar in fact. Plus ca change.
>
> You would have to compare the time of the enclosures with today's 3rd
> world displacements, not anything currently happening in the UK.
a great many similarities. You leave your rural backwater because it
offers greater opportunities for your children to get education and
whilst you have no hope of more than day labour work, they have a chance
of better.
>
> >
> >>(1) The enclosure awards were usually private acts, but sometimes
> >>public ones, in which land previously farmed socially was divided
> >>between large landowners who could provide proof of some claim.
People
> >>who had previously had rights to graze a cow or some geese on common
> >>land were dispossessed of these rights.
> >
> >This simply isn't so. Common land is land held in common specifically
by
> >those entitled to use it (as it is to this day) and is NOT land where
> >anyone can graze stock. This is a popular misconception and one that
> >*really annoys* people with commons rights.
>
> The restricted and shrinking rights to commons today are nothing like
> commons back then when it is doubtful that anyone in the village would
> have been refused the right to use the common.
>
Rubbish . if you brought your sheep to the common to which you have no
rights, this means the rest of the commoners have to cut down the number
of their sheep, or everyones sheep suffer. Either way you are costing
them money or literally taking food out of their childrens mouths.
Commons were always farmed to the maximum of their potential at the
time.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
uk
Oz
UK common land
Fenris Wolf writes
>In article <+tut2qAU48$8E...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Fenris Wolf writes
>>>In article <hxbqhLDBfw$8E...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
>>><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>>I have said so. Yet in order to keep up with 'food supplies'
>>>>>intensive farming, specifically for livestock, has resulted
>>>>>in displacement of people from their land, destruction of
>>>>>billions of hectares of natural habitat / ecosystem, wildlife,
>>>>>and soil erosion / desertification in many areas + pollution.
>>>>
>>>>Surprising that england is such a green and pleasant land and nobody was
>>>>'forced off', they just preferred factories and cities.
>>>
>>>Depends when you are talking about. Most of the countryside of England
>>>had been depopulated by the enclosure awards (1)
>>
>>Actually the enclosure awards split common land (typically strip
>>farming) between the various people entitled to them in the ratio the
>>were entitled to them.
>
>Depends how you rate entitlement. People who had originally had the
>right to graze a cow could end up with nothing. What started off as a
>communal village ended up with land being fenced off from most of them.
It was never communal village land that everyone could use.
That is called public land and not commons.
>>The early part of the enclosures people tended to
>>take their share and you ended up with lots of very small fields. Later
>>the wealthier people tended to buy out the smaller ones (whether these
>>people actually did any farming varied). Generally it probably seemed a
>>better bet to sell your entitlement to a few acres and move to the city.
>
>Haven't yet seen an award which didn't give the vast majority of the
>land to a few main landowners. How were people who couldn't even read
>and write to lodge claims? No legal aid back then <g>
That's because (surprise surprise) the main landowners had the largest
shares in the first place, usually going back to the norman conquest
(and earlier).
>>>and the people
>>>displaced to the cities as cheap factory labour long before the
>>>intensification of agriculture.
>>
>>The people who had no land (by then the majority in most places) moved
>>to the city because there was permanent work there unlike in the
>>countryside where work was hard, low paid and seasonal. Most were hired
>>by the day (as still happens in india for example).
>
>What permanent work? When this all started they still sent children
>down mines and up chimneys. They employed children and women in the
>factories because they cost less than men.
Mining is permanent work and so is factory work.
In agriculture at that time you only got employed when people needed
extra hands, and you got taken on for the day. If it rained, no work. If
farming wasn;t busy, no work. This meant you didn't work for much of the
time.
>>>Those who didn't go voluntarily were
>>>likely to have been transported for minor crimes such as trapping a
>>>rabbit to feed their starving families.
>>
>>Those entitled to a strip were rarely starving (although far from
>>wealthy).
>
>They were also in the minority.
Of course. Populations had risen considerably since the black death,
which dearth of labour probably started the whole thing.
>>>So when agriculture started
>>>intensifying all that was needed was to cut the workforce and replace
>>>them with machinery.
>>
>>Actually the other way round (something that continues to this day).
>>Lack of labour forced farmers to use machinery.
>
>Not at the beginning of the agrarian revolution.
Yes, at the beginning too.
Why run an expensive horse you have to house and feed all year when you
can get people by the day for very little. If they have all gone off to
the mines and factories then you have to.
>I suppose you could
>say that the real intensification of agriculture in Britain happened
>then, and the more recent changes have just been variations or further
>streamlining of the system. The problem with the introduction of
>machinery is that once someone gets a machine that does the work of 10
>men for half the cost, either everyone else gets that machine or they
>cannot compete. There is no going back once you open Pandora's box.
Not quite what happens. What happens is that people leave and you either
can't afford to hire another or (more common) there isn't another to be
had. Unfortunately most farming jobs (then and now) require more skill,
dedication, dirty working and difficult hours than industrial ones.
People just don't want, and won't, do it.
The best example in recent decades is spraying crops that were
historically hoed (eg vegetables, sugarbeet). It was cheaper and much
more effective to hire in a gang of hoers, but they could not be
obtained for love nor money by the 70's (southern england) which left
spraying the ONLY alternative. The same applies to hand lifting.
Don't even think about milking cows.
>>>There can be no direct comparison with a peasant
>>>population displaced from the land as happens today in developing
>>>countries.
>>
>>Hmmm. Very similar in fact. Plus ca change.
>
>You would have to compare the time of the enclosures with today's 3rd
>world displacements, not anything currently happening in the UK.
That's what I am doing.
>>>(1) The enclosure awards were usually private acts, but sometimes
>>>public ones, in which land previously farmed socially was divided
>>>between large landowners who could provide proof of some claim. People
>>>who had previously had rights to graze a cow or some geese on common
>>>land were dispossessed of these rights.
>>
>>This simply isn't so. Common land is land held in common specifically by
>>those entitled to use it (as it is to this day) and is NOT land where
>>anyone can graze stock. This is a popular misconception and one that
>>*really annoys* people with commons rights.
>
>The restricted and shrinking rights to commons today are nothing like
>commons back then when it is doubtful that anyone in the village would
>have been refused the right to use the common.
You have to be joking. The rights were jealously guarded.
They were worth money.
>>>Sometimes a small portion of
>>>land would be put aside as allotments for the labouring poor, but in
>>>general people lost the means of self sufficiency. The mood of the
>>>times can perhaps be summed up in the following anonymous rhyme.
>>
>>Nice idea, pity it's quite wrong.
>>
>>>The law locks up the man or woman,
>>>That steals the goose from off the common,
>>>But leaves the greater villain loose,
>>>That steals the common from the goose.
>>
>>That's because the goose isn't everyone's goose, but belongs to ONE
>>individual with grazing rights. Typical complete lack of understanding
>>of what commons are.
>>
>>And yes I do know people with commons rights.
>>
>
>So do I. Been farming for years. And 20 - 30 years back you would
>still find resentment among people who believed they had lost rights
>over particular pieces of land.
Happens in cities today. That's why we have registration and that all
land transfers are invalid unless witnessed and in writing.
>Back in the '60's there was a lot of
>ill feeling when some of the local moorland was sold for forestry and
>none of the locals knew it was anything other than common (some still
>used to cut peat on it here - West Wales) They had no idea the common
>had been enclosed (in name only).
What did the commons court (or equivalent body) do about it?
Or was it land where individuals had been allowed to dig peat as a grace
and favour?
Kev Crocombe
>'forced off', they just preferred factories and cities.
Shit - have you got a lot to learn about history!
--
***********************************************************************
I am a phagocyte in the the bloodstream of the body politic
***********************************************************************
Jim Webster
Kev Crocombe <k...@crocombe.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mc9U4LAx...@cableinet.co.uk...
> In article <hxbqhLDBfw$8E...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
> <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
> >
> >Surprising that england is such a green and pleasant land and nobody
was
> >'forced off', they just preferred factories and cities.
>
> Shit - have you got a lot to learn about history!
I know the people who left the land after the second world war, they
were not ejected, they just got up and went because life was much better
in the towns.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
>
Gordon Couger
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> Kev Crocombe <k...@crocombe.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:mc9U4LAx...@cableinet.co.uk...
> > In article <hxbqhLDBfw$8E...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
> > <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
> > >
> > >Surprising that england is such a green and pleasant land and nobody
> was
> > >'forced off', they just preferred factories and cities.
> >
> > Shit - have you got a lot to learn about history!
>
>
> I know the people who left the land after the second world war, they
> were not ejected, they just got up and went because life was much better
> in the towns.
That has happened in the US in the 30's in the dust bowl. My granddad bough
a 160 acres the late 30's in April with wheat planted on 80 acres and paid
for it with the wheat crop he cut in June.
Recently folks turned hogs, ostriches and emus out when the bottom fell out
of the markets. Walking off and leaving land is one thing but turning stock
out really irresponsible. They have become so PC that they turn their
problems out on their neighbors rather take care of them.
Oz
> I know the people who left the land after the second world war, they
>were not ejected, they just got up and went because life was much better
>in the towns.
The same has applied (in waves) for centuries in england.
Remember that when they were new the back to back housing of the mill
towns were luxury palaces compared to a rodent infected hovel in the
village.
Further you had regular work six days a week and only worked 10 hours a
day.
And typically it was inside work with no heavy lifting.
This was *vastly* preferable to agricultural work at the time.
Which is why they left.
HobGoBlin
Fenris Wolf
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>Jim Webster writes
>
>> I know the people who left the land after the second world war, they
>>were not ejected, they just got up and went because life was much better
>>in the towns.
>
>The same has applied (in waves) for centuries in england.
>
>Remember that when they were new the back to back housing of the mill
>towns were luxury palaces compared to a rodent infected hovel in the
>village.
>
>Further you had regular work six days a week and only worked 10 hours a
>day.
>
>And typically it was inside work with no heavy lifting.
>
>This was *vastly* preferable to agricultural work at the time.
>
>Which is why they left.
>
working on the land because they simply were no longer wanted (at a
price they could afford to feed their families). Chances are they were
heading to the workhouse, slave labour and near starvation if they
weren't lucky enough to find work.
Incidentally, where do you get this idea that workers in the UK were so
well off? There have been comparisons between the lot of slaves in the
US South and 'free' workers in the UK, and the general consensus has
been that people looked after their slaves far better because they had
value. The worker in the UK could be replaced by opening the factory
door and letting the next man (or child) in the queue through the door.
Fenris Wolf
e.knows.where.by.now> writes
>
>Fenris Wolf <Fen...@reality8.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:vMNPwKB4u9
>
>> Depends how you rate entitlement. People who had originally had the
>> right to graze a cow could end up with nothing. What started off as a
>> communal village ended up with land being fenced off from most of
>them.
>
>remember the right to graze a cow was always conditional on fulfilling
>obligations, rights were never "free"
Depends where. These were the times when those with absolutely nothing
could go to the outskirts of the village, clear a plot of scrub land,
build some form of dwelling, and eventually claim squatters rights.
>
>>
>> >The early part of the enclosures people tended to
>> >take their share and you ended up with lots of very small fields.
>Later
>> >the wealthier people tended to buy out the smaller ones (whether
>these
>> >people actually did any farming varied). Generally it probably seemed
>a
>> >better bet to sell your entitlement to a few acres and move to the
>city.
>>
>> Haven't yet seen an award which didn't give the vast majority of the
>> land to a few main landowners. How were people who couldn't even read
>> and write to lodge claims? No legal aid back then <g>
>
>surprising number of deaths at the time, land agents and landowners who
>went too far.
The Rebeccas (men dressed as women) who destroyed the turnpike trust
toll gates were far more organised and effective. (For those not in the
UK, the turnpike trusts were the original private roads, they repaired a
stretch of road and then charged for the use of it. People could not
afford it and rebelled violently)
>
>> >
>> >>and the people
>> >>displaced to the cities as cheap factory labour long before the
>> >>intensification of agriculture.
>> >
>> >The people who had no land (by then the majority in most places)
>moved
>> >to the city because there was permanent work there unlike in the
>> >countryside where work was hard, low paid and seasonal. Most were
>hired
>> >by the day (as still happens in india for example).
>>
>> What permanent work? When this all started they still sent children
>> down mines and up chimneys. They employed children and women in the
>> factories because they cost less than men.
>
>nothing changes does it. The general population still happily pay rock
>bottom prices for goods produced by child labour or in prison camps.
The problem is that if a family is on low wages, or welfare, they have
little option but to buy the cheapest they can get.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>Those who didn't go voluntarily were
>> >>likely to have been transported for minor crimes such as trapping a
>> >>rabbit to feed their starving families.
>> >
>> >Those entitled to a strip were rarely starving (although far from
>> >wealthy).
>>
>> They were also in the minority.
>
>those who were in danger of starving on a regular basis were jobbing
>day labourers.
Didn't really happen until the enclosures started though did it?
>They were the first to abandon the rural areas for the
>relative prosperity of the industrial revolution with its year round
>work. Prior to the 19th century, starvation was a risk for virtually any
>rural dweller.
True, but food supplies would be pretty much communal, and there wasn't
the same attitude to people potting a hare or rabbit. Man traps for
trespassers were a later phenomenon.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>So when agriculture started
>> >>intensifying all that was needed was to cut the workforce and
>replace
>> >>them with machinery.
>> >
>> >Actually the other way round (something that continues to this day).
>> >Lack of labour forced farmers to use machinery.
>>
>> Not at the beginning of the agrarian revolution. I suppose you could
>> say that the real intensification of agriculture in Britain happened
>> then, and the more recent changes have just been variations or further
>> streamlining of the system. The problem with the introduction of
>> machinery is that once someone gets a machine that does the work of 10
>> men for half the cost, either everyone else gets that machine or they
>> cannot compete. There is no going back once you open Pandora's box.
>
>you have your timing all wrong. The big revolution in the employed
>labour was the introduction of mechanisation after the second world war.
Certainly that was the largest in terms of numbers, but you are
forgetting population growth (which had only become possible thanks to
improved agricultural methods and better food supplies)
In terms of the population that existed at the time of the enclosures
there were massive population movements, and for those who would not go,
trumped up charges and transportation. The big landowners wanted their
property to themselves, and had forgotten the debt they owed to the
people who had traditionally worked that land for them.
>You had a situation where a lot of men had got off the land into the
>army and had travelled, combined with an opening up of new urban jobs
>and improved housing. With the better working conditions, shorter hours,
>better housing conditions, better wages, people flocked to the towns.
Yes, but at the same time we now had tractors replacing horses. The
same number of workers was no longer needed on the land.
>This is why the common agricultural policy was brought in, the gap
>between urban and rural wages and working conditions had grown so large
>that it was unsustainable.
HA! CAP was the biggest disaster farming has ever seen. It has turned
us all into government workers. The sooner we are out of the EU and
free to farm and work our land in the real world the better. The
regulations are killing the industry and driving people out of their
farms.
>
>> >
>> >>There can be no direct comparison with a peasant
>> >>population displaced from the land as happens today in developing
>> >>countries.
>> >
>> >Hmmm. Very similar in fact. Plus ca change.
>>
>> You would have to compare the time of the enclosures with today's 3rd
>> world displacements, not anything currently happening in the UK.
>
>a great many similarities. You leave your rural backwater because it
>offers greater opportunities for your children to get education and
>whilst you have no hope of more than day labour work, they have a chance
>of better.
Did people think like that back then? Not going to look, but I have a
feeling compulsory education came well after the enclosures and their
effects.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>(1) The enclosure awards were usually private acts, but sometimes
>> >>public ones, in which land previously farmed socially was divided
>> >>between large landowners who could provide proof of some claim.
>People
>> >>who had previously had rights to graze a cow or some geese on common
>> >>land were dispossessed of these rights.
>> >
>> >This simply isn't so. Common land is land held in common specifically
>by
>> >those entitled to use it (as it is to this day) and is NOT land where
>> >anyone can graze stock. This is a popular misconception and one that
>> >*really annoys* people with commons rights.
>>
>> The restricted and shrinking rights to commons today are nothing like
>> commons back then when it is doubtful that anyone in the village would
>> have been refused the right to use the common.
>>
>
>Rubbish . if you brought your sheep to the common to which you have no
>rights, this means the rest of the commoners have to cut down the number
>of their sheep, or everyones sheep suffer. Either way you are costing
>them money or literally taking food out of their childrens mouths.
>Commons were always farmed to the maximum of their potential at the
>time.
You are talking about a time when there was never enough fodder to keep
animals over the winter. Numbers were limited because most would be
killed at the start of the winter and salted down (no freezers!). Only
the breeding stock stayed alive.
Fenris Wolf
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>UK common land
>
>Fenris Wolf writes
>>In article <+tut2qAU48$8E...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
>><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>Fenris Wolf writes
>>>>In article <hxbqhLDBfw$8E...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
>>>><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>I have said so. Yet in order to keep up with 'food supplies'
>>>>>>intensive farming, specifically for livestock, has resulted
>>>>>>in displacement of people from their land, destruction of
>>>>>>billions of hectares of natural habitat / ecosystem, wildlife,
>>>>>>and soil erosion / desertification in many areas + pollution.
>>>>>
>>>>>Surprising that england is such a green and pleasant land and nobody was
>>>>>'forced off', they just preferred factories and cities.
>>>>
>>>>Depends when you are talking about. Most of the countryside of England
>>>>had been depopulated by the enclosure awards (1)
>>>
>>>Actually the enclosure awards split common land (typically strip
>>>farming) between the various people entitled to them in the ratio the
>>>were entitled to them.
>>
>>Depends how you rate entitlement. People who had originally had the
>>right to graze a cow could end up with nothing. What started off as a
>>communal village ended up with land being fenced off from most of them.
>
>It was never communal village land that everyone could use.
>That is called public land and not commons.
What land are you suggesting was enclosed as a result of the awards?
People in an area used whatever land was available. Why did you think
there was such unhappiness at the enclosures if people did not lose
anything they believed they had a right to?
>
>>>The early part of the enclosures people tended to
>>>take their share and you ended up with lots of very small fields. Later
>>>the wealthier people tended to buy out the smaller ones (whether these
>>>people actually did any farming varied). Generally it probably seemed a
>>>better bet to sell your entitlement to a few acres and move to the city.
>>
>>Haven't yet seen an award which didn't give the vast majority of the
>>land to a few main landowners. How were people who couldn't even read
>>and write to lodge claims? No legal aid back then <g>
>
>That's because (surprise surprise) the main landowners had the largest
>shares in the first place, usually going back to the norman conquest
>(and earlier).
Like I have said before, pre-enclosure villages were essentially
communes, with some members being more equal than others, no-one except
the main land owner having any real rights to the land, and the system
worked just fine until the main landowner got greedy and was given the
chance to take the lot.
Don't read this wrong. I am all in favour of private ownership, but
what happened back then was wrong, it is just that there is nothing we
can do about it now.
>
>>>>and the people
>>>>displaced to the cities as cheap factory labour long before the
>>>>intensification of agriculture.
>>>
>>>The people who had no land (by then the majority in most places) moved
>>>to the city because there was permanent work there unlike in the
>>>countryside where work was hard, low paid and seasonal. Most were hired
>>>by the day (as still happens in india for example).
>>
>>What permanent work? When this all started they still sent children
>>down mines and up chimneys. They employed children and women in the
>>factories because they cost less than men.
>
>Mining is permanent work and so is factory work.
Oh? Without guards on machinery or safety procedures? Permanent until
you are crippled and chucked out on the scrap heap to starve, along with
your family, or until you are buried in the latest mine accident
perhaps.
>In agriculture at that time you only got employed when people needed
>extra hands, and you got taken on for the day. If it rained, no work. If
>farming wasn;t busy, no work. This meant you didn't work for much of the
>time.
The pre-enclosure villages were pretty much little communes. It wasn't
until later that people were turfed out to starve.
>
>>>>Those who didn't go voluntarily were
>>>>likely to have been transported for minor crimes such as trapping a
>>>>rabbit to feed their starving families.
>>>
>>>Those entitled to a strip were rarely starving (although far from
>>>wealthy).
>>
>>They were also in the minority.
>
>Of course. Populations had risen considerably since the black death,
>which dearth of labour probably started the whole thing.
I'm not at all sure of the actual trigger for enclosures. The
developments in agriculture and industry were a result of wealthy people
having the time to experiment.
>
>>>>So when agriculture started
>>>>intensifying all that was needed was to cut the workforce and replace
>>>>them with machinery.
>>>
>>>Actually the other way round (something that continues to this day).
>>>Lack of labour forced farmers to use machinery.
>>
>>Not at the beginning of the agrarian revolution.
>
>Yes, at the beginning too.
>Why run an expensive horse you have to house and feed all year when you
>can get people by the day for very little. If they have all gone off to
>the mines and factories then you have to.
Horses back then weren't expensive to keep, because there was plenty of
land. Different for those in towns.
The fact remains that the introduction of machinery put people out of
work. Once the people became a liability, they were not wanted.
>
>>I suppose you could
>>say that the real intensification of agriculture in Britain happened
>>then, and the more recent changes have just been variations or further
>>streamlining of the system. The problem with the introduction of
>>machinery is that once someone gets a machine that does the work of 10
>>men for half the cost, either everyone else gets that machine or they
>>cannot compete. There is no going back once you open Pandora's box.
>
>Not quite what happens. What happens is that people leave and you either
>can't afford to hire another or (more common) there isn't another to be
>had. Unfortunately most farming jobs (then and now) require more skill,
>dedication, dirty working and difficult hours than industrial ones.
Those still in agriculture back then were far better off in terms of
working conditions than their industrial counterparts.
>
>People just don't want, and won't, do it.
Not while there is a minimum wage, and this has existed ever since
welfare payments started. Who is going to work when they can get more
on the dole?
>
>The best example in recent decades is spraying crops that were
>historically hoed (eg vegetables, sugarbeet). It was cheaper and much
>more effective to hire in a gang of hoers, but they could not be
>obtained for love nor money by the 70's (southern england) which left
>spraying the ONLY alternative. The same applies to hand lifting.
Back in the '70's they were all on the dole and at the latest CND march.
<g>
>
>Don't even think about milking cows.
>
>>>>There can be no direct comparison with a peasant
>>>>population displaced from the land as happens today in developing
>>>>countries.
>>>
>>>Hmmm. Very similar in fact. Plus ca change.
>>
>>You would have to compare the time of the enclosures with today's 3rd
>>world displacements, not anything currently happening in the UK.
>
>That's what I am doing.
Wasn't clear from your original postings.
>
>>>>(1) The enclosure awards were usually private acts, but sometimes
>>>>public ones, in which land previously farmed socially was divided
>>>>between large landowners who could provide proof of some claim. People
>>>>who had previously had rights to graze a cow or some geese on common
>>>>land were dispossessed of these rights.
>>>
>>>This simply isn't so. Common land is land held in common specifically by
>>>those entitled to use it (as it is to this day) and is NOT land where
>>>anyone can graze stock. This is a popular misconception and one that
>>>*really annoys* people with commons rights.
>>
>>The restricted and shrinking rights to commons today are nothing like
>>commons back then when it is doubtful that anyone in the village would
>>have been refused the right to use the common.
>
>You have to be joking. The rights were jealously guarded.
>They were worth money.
Where and when did this guarding of rights start? Was it localised to
particular areas? Your descriptions bear little resemblance to they way
things were done here.
>
>>>>Sometimes a small portion of
>>>>land would be put aside as allotments for the labouring poor, but in
>>>>general people lost the means of self sufficiency. The mood of the
>>>>times can perhaps be summed up in the following anonymous rhyme.
>>>
>>>Nice idea, pity it's quite wrong.
>>>
>>>>The law locks up the man or woman,
>>>>That steals the goose from off the common,
>>>>But leaves the greater villain loose,
>>>>That steals the common from the goose.
>>>
>>>That's because the goose isn't everyone's goose, but belongs to ONE
>>>individual with grazing rights. Typical complete lack of understanding
>>>of what commons are.
>>>
>>>And yes I do know people with commons rights.
>>>
>>
>>So do I. Been farming for years. And 20 - 30 years back you would
>>still find resentment among people who believed they had lost rights
>>over particular pieces of land.
>
>Happens in cities today. That's why we have registration and that all
>land transfers are invalid unless witnessed and in writing.
People fight over commons in cities? Land registration had nothing to
do with being able to prove your boundaries though. If you ask the land
registry they will tell you that the maps they have are far too
inaccurate for that, despite the claims that it would solve all boundary
disputes when the idea was being touted. Land registration is just a
means of ensuring government knows who owns what and where to find them.
It is also a necessary step along the way to nationalisation of land.
>
>>Back in the '60's there was a lot of
>>ill feeling when some of the local moorland was sold for forestry and
>>none of the locals knew it was anything other than common (some still
>>used to cut peat on it here - West Wales) They had no idea the common
>>had been enclosed (in name only).
>
>What did the commons court (or equivalent body) do about it?
What commons court? Not every common has a court.
>Or was it land where individuals had been allowed to dig peat as a grace
>and favour?
>
Nope. This was land that had been treated in exactly the same was as it
had been before enclosures. Anybody could use it. No-one was aware
that there had been an enclosure award. By the time it was sold and
planted with forestry the use of those assumed rights were dying out -
newcomers were buying properties in the area and they knew nothing about
it. There were still older people here who couldn't speak English. None
of them were going to even think of going to a solicitor to find out
what had happened.
I remember people coming round when they were doing some sort of commons
registrations years back. They wanted to know what rights people had.
When they were told anybody could use it they kept on putting leading
questions along the lines of 'surely you mean that only the people here
had any rights?' until a very embarrased group came out of the meeting
having awarded themselves a batch of rights, including access, and those
not at the meeting had nothing. (not the same common or area)
it is a bit like the footpath registrations back in the '50's. If you
take a look at the reasons for registration some of them will even state
'unused and impassable'! I actually got copies of a selection of those!
Pressure groups tend to get what they want. The people actually
affected are often unaware of what is going on until it is far too late.
--
Fenris Wolf
Gordon Couger
> In article <ZMZ0O$B0KdA...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
> <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
> >Jim Webster writes
> >
> >> I know the people who left the land after the second world war, they
> >>were not ejected, they just got up and went because life was much better
> >>in the towns.
> >
> >The same has applied (in waves) for centuries in england.
> >
> >Remember that when they were new the back to back housing of the mill
> >towns were luxury palaces compared to a rodent infected hovel in the
> >village.
> >
> >Further you had regular work six days a week and only worked 10 hours a
> >day.
> >
> >And typically it was inside work with no heavy lifting.
> >
> >This was *vastly* preferable to agricultural work at the time.
They better than most of my days when I was farning too.
> >
> >Which is why they left.
> >
> Depends when you are talking about. In general people left villages and
> working on the land because they simply were no longer wanted (at a
> price they could afford to feed their families). Chances are they were
> heading to the workhouse, slave labour and near starvation if they
> weren't lucky enough to find work.
>
> Incidentally, where do you get this idea that workers in the UK were so
> well off? There have been comparisons between the lot of slaves in the
> US South and 'free' workers in the UK, and the general consensus has
> been that people looked after their slaves far better because they had
> value. The worker in the UK could be replaced by opening the factory
> door and letting the next man (or child) in the queue through the door.
>
Speaking of slaves I attended a funeral of a dear friends mother. There were
all the society ladies there, my friends friends and a black lady. I ask my
friend about the black lady and he said that she was her mothers maid and
the families had been together since 1850 starting a slaves. When the slaves
were freed the only thing that change was they paid them some money and
reduced some of the services they provided the slaves. The pay was more than
the reduced services.
It was not a master servant relation ship but a long history of respect and
service.
Fenris Wolf
<Fen...@reality8.demon.co.uk> writes
>>surprising number of deaths at the time, land agents and landowners who
>>went too far.
>
>The Rebeccas (men dressed as women) who destroyed the turnpike trust
>toll gates were far more organised and effective. (For those not in the
>UK, the turnpike trusts were the original private roads, they repaired a
>stretch of road and then charged for the use of it. People could not
>afford it and rebelled violently)
>>
It just stopped raining here so I have to go and do some work! Not sure
when I'll be back - helping a soon to be ex-neighbour move up North this
afternoon and tomorrow.
However I did a search and found an incredibly interesting looking
resource for the time period we are discussing at:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook14.html
Jim Webster
sod all work house and starvation in the 1940s and 1950s
>
> Incidentally, where do you get this idea that workers in the UK were
so
> well off? There have been comparisons between the lot of slaves in
the
> US South and 'free' workers in the UK, and the general consensus has
> been that people looked after their slaves far better because they had
> value. The worker in the UK could be replaced by opening the factory
> door and letting the next man (or child) in the queue through the
door.
the economics of a slave owning society are interesting, what you gain
on labour costs you lose on having an armed and more militarised society
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Jim Webster
> In article <adpipp$2sv$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster
<jim@everyon
> e.knows.where.by.now> writes
> >
> >Fenris Wolf <Fen...@reality8.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:vMNPwKB4u9
> >
> >> Depends how you rate entitlement. People who had originally had
the
> >> right to graze a cow could end up with nothing. What started off
as a
> >> communal village ended up with land being fenced off from most of
> >them.
> >
> >remember the right to graze a cow was always conditional on
fulfilling
> >obligations, rights were never "free"
>
> Depends where. These were the times when those with absolutely
nothing
> could go to the outskirts of the village, clear a plot of scrub land,
> build some form of dwelling, and eventually claim squatters rights.
not in England is wasn't. Land has always had an owner, even if only the
lord of the manor. (Remember the phrase manorial waste)
> >nothing changes does it. The general population still happily pay
rock
> >bottom prices for goods produced by child labour or in prison camps.
>
> The problem is that if a family is on low wages, or welfare, they have
> little option but to buy the cheapest they can get.
>
and what about the rest of the population?
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>Those who didn't go voluntarily were
> >> >>likely to have been transported for minor crimes such as trapping
a
> >> >>rabbit to feed their starving families.
> >> >
> >> >Those entitled to a strip were rarely starving (although far from
> >> >wealthy).
> >>
> >> They were also in the minority.
> >
> >those who were in danger of starving on a regular basis were jobbing
> >day labourers.
>
> Didn't really happen until the enclosures started though did it?
>
what didn't happen?
Remember that prior to the industrial revolution it was not easy to
leave the land and move to town because you had not got a craft and
would not be accepted by the guilds. That left domestic service or day
labouring in town
> >They were the first to abandon the rural areas for the
> >relative prosperity of the industrial revolution with its year round
> >work. Prior to the 19th century, starvation was a risk for virtually
any
> >rural dweller.
>
> True, but food supplies would be pretty much communal, and there
wasn't
> the same attitude to people potting a hare or rabbit. Man traps for
> trespassers were a later phenomenon.
sorry but do you have any evidence for this rubbish. Poaching was
punishable by hamstringing and dogs had their dew claws removed.
and imports from the Americas, the steam ships which could pretty well
guarantee the arrival of huge grain cargos.
> In terms of the population that existed at the time of the enclosures
> there were massive population movements, and for those who would not
go,
> trumped up charges and transportation. The big landowners wanted
their
> property to themselves, and had forgotten the debt they owed to the
> people who had traditionally worked that land for them.
>
what debt? A rather emotive statement. You could just as well say that
the rural population that went to the towns for the better standard of
living betrayed the trust of their landlords.
> >You had a situation where a lot of men had got off the land into the
> >army and had travelled, combined with an opening up of new urban jobs
> >and improved housing. With the better working conditions, shorter
hours,
> >better housing conditions, better wages, people flocked to the towns.
>
> Yes, but at the same time we now had tractors replacing horses. The
> same number of workers was no longer needed on the land.
Tractors and the internal combustion engine were hardly new in the
1950s, the Soviet tractor factories had been flourishing in the 1920s
and 30s. (Remember Stalingrad and the battles for the huge tractor
factories there.) So We could have gone over to tractors back in the
1920s. It was economics and lack of labour that drove the mechanisation.
>
> >This is why the common agricultural policy was brought in, the gap
> >between urban and rural wages and working conditions had grown so
large
> >that it was unsustainable.
>
> HA! CAP was the biggest disaster farming has ever seen. It has
turned
> us all into government workers. The sooner we are out of the EU and
> free to farm and work our land in the real world the better.
sorry but where is the real world? You have seen the recent US
agricultural subsidy schemes?
The
> regulations are killing the industry and driving people out of their
> farms.
>
that and low prices, the fact that the job isn't worth the candle
> >
> >> >
> >> >>There can be no direct comparison with a peasant
> >> >>population displaced from the land as happens today in developing
> >> >>countries.
> >> >
> >> >Hmmm. Very similar in fact. Plus ca change.
> >>
> >> You would have to compare the time of the enclosures with today's
3rd
> >> world displacements, not anything currently happening in the UK.
> >
> >a great many similarities. You leave your rural backwater because it
> >offers greater opportunities for your children to get education and
> >whilst you have no hope of more than day labour work, they have a
chance
> >of better.
>
> Did people think like that back then? Not going to look, but I have a
> feeling compulsory education came well after the enclosures and their
> effects.
urban populations had more chance of education, whether through the
trade union, or the various non confirmist churches, or even those
employers who believed in this sort of thing.
so? this merely means that it is more important, not less to ensure that
some clown doesn't introduce extra stock
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> >
> >
>
Kev Crocombe
e.knows.where.by.now> writes
>
>> Depends where. These were the times when those with absolutely
>nothing
>> could go to the outskirts of the village, clear a plot of scrub land,
>> build some form of dwelling, and eventually claim squatters rights.
>
>not in England is wasn't. Land has always had an owner, even if only the
>lord of the manor. (Remember the phrase manorial waste)
There are still squatters rights even now.
Oz
>In article <ZMZ0O$B0KdA...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Jim Webster writes
>>
>>> I know the people who left the land after the second world war, they
>>>were not ejected, they just got up and went because life was much better
>>>in the towns.
>>
>>The same has applied (in waves) for centuries in england.
>>
>>Remember that when they were new the back to back housing of the mill
>>towns were luxury palaces compared to a rodent infected hovel in the
>>village.
>>
>>Further you had regular work six days a week and only worked 10 hours a
>>day.
>>
>>And typically it was inside work with no heavy lifting.
>>
>>This was *vastly* preferable to agricultural work at the time.
>>
>>Which is why they left.
>>
>Depends when you are talking about. In general people left villages and
>working on the land because they simply were no longer wanted (at a
>price they could afford to feed their families).
10/10, just what I said.
>Chances are they were
>heading to the workhouse, slave labour and near starvation if they
>weren't lucky enough to find work.
So they went to the city or mills where work was available, and full
time and continuously, too.
>Incidentally, where do you get this idea that workers in the UK were so
>well off? There have been comparisons between the lot of slaves in the
>US South and 'free' workers in the UK, and the general consensus has
>been that people looked after their slaves far better because they had
>value. The worker in the UK could be replaced by opening the factory
>door and letting the next man (or child) in the queue through the door.
At some times (particularly mid-late victorian times and in the 30's)
this was true. However it was very very bad in the countryside too, so
people didn;t return to get worse conditions.
You are confused. For some strange reason you assume that if it is bad
in the cities then it's better in rural areas when generally the reverse
has been the case (overwhelmingly in fact), hence the continual exodus
of rural people to the cities that continues to this day.
Oz
>What land are you suggesting was enclosed as a result of the awards?
>People in an area used whatever land was available.
They most certainly did not. They had strips of arable land carefully
passed on and occasionally split or amalgamated in the usual hereditory
fashion and they had commoners rights to some number and type of stock
on the common grazing.
If you didn't have these rights, you couldn;t make use of them and
nobody was about to donate you any of their share. Heck, they usually
didn't even pass it on to younger children and women!
>Why did you think
>there was such unhappiness at the enclosures if people did not lose
>anything they believed they had a right to?
Let's take what I believe to be an original strip farmed field.
Absolutely perfect for the purpose it is 164 ac (ie 880ydsx880yds)
between an ancient road and the parish boundary.
Against the road it is a very light loam over gravel. This changes
slowly and evenly as you go across until it becomes a very heavy deep
clay along the parish boundary.
For strip farming it is perfect. Everyone gets strips that will do well
in every season be it wet, dry, early or late. Now how do you fairly
divide this into (say) 64 enclosures?
You can't. Someone will get all heavy clay, someone else all light loam
over gravel.
Can you just imagine the arguments?
Heated would'nt describe it adequately.
>Like I have said before, pre-enclosure villages were essentially
>communes,
Rubbish. Utter rubbish.
>with some members being more equal than others,
Yeah, righ ... communes ... right.
>no-one except
>the main land owner having any real rights to the land,
Garbage. The rights were laid down and had been in operation since saxon
times in most cases.
>and the system
>worked just fine until the main landowner got greedy and was given the
>chance to take the lot.
Only if he paid up.
This often took decades with individuals refusing to co-operate.
>Don't read this wrong. I am all in favour of private ownership, but
>what happened back then was wrong, it is just that there is nothing we
>can do about it now.
It may have been unfair (and probably was) but quite frankly that's
history. It was certainly not a case of the local lord just taking it
over.
>>Mining is permanent work and so is factory work.
>
>Oh? Without guards on machinery or safety procedures?
Absolutely. Just like the agriculture at the time.
>Permanent until
>you are crippled and chucked out on the scrap heap to starve, along with
>your family, or until you are buried in the latest mine accident
>perhaps.
Yup. Just like agriculture you were supported by your children.
No pensions or social security for ANYONE in those days you know.
>The pre-enclosure villages were pretty much little communes. It wasn't
>until later that people were turfed out to starve.
Rubbish. They lived on charity, or died without it, in city or
countryside. Those were hard times, you know.
>I'm not at all sure of the actual trigger for enclosures. The
>developments in agriculture and industry were a result of wealthy people
>having the time to experiment.
Mostly it was because some strip owners were pissed off with having to
do the farming operations as set down by the strip committee (in effect)
and thought they could do it better themselves. Rotations were being
introduced and the inflexible saxon system had to change to feed the
urban population rather than the local population of stripowners.
>>Yes, at the beginning too.
>>Why run an expensive horse you have to house and feed all year when you
>>can get people by the day for very little. If they have all gone off to
>>the mines and factories then you have to.
>
>Horses back then weren't expensive to keep, because there was plenty of
>land. Different for those in towns.
What! Horses weren't expensive to keep? Who are you kidding?
To work they needed lots of human food (oats), continual skilled
mechanical repairs (blacksmiths), expensive training and skilled
operators to work them. They needed well over an acre each (grazing and
forage) and lots of difficult to make and expensive hay. On top of that
to get a days work out of them you needed over an hour at each end of
the day to service their needs and put them to bed (why an old tractor
driver I employed said he would never go back to the horses of his
youth).
What's more they had a vast number of breakdown modes, and you lost a
bundle if they died.
>The fact remains that the introduction of machinery put people out of
>work. Once the people became a liability, they were not wanted.
You are in the overwhelming main simply wrong.
You have it completely backwards.
>Those still in agriculture back then were far better off in terms of
>working conditions than their industrial counterparts.
Working in shit, in the rain, at all hours, for meagre (by industrial
standards) pay, often behind a horse in all weathers and handling vast
amounts of raw materials in heavy smelly sacks?
Compared to farming factories were warm, dry, clean places.
>>People just don't want, and won't, do it.
>
>Not while there is a minimum wage, and this has existed ever since
>welfare payments started. Who is going to work when they can get more
>on the dole?
YOu have it quite wrong. Hoers (for example) were hugely well paid and
even good potato pickers on piecework could earn many times the average
wage a week. When I said people wouldn't do it for any money, that means
LOTS of money.
>>>The restricted and shrinking rights to commons today are nothing like
>>>commons back then when it is doubtful that anyone in the village would
>>>have been refused the right to use the common.
>>
>>You have to be joking. The rights were jealously guarded.
>>They were worth money.
>
>Where and when did this guarding of rights start? Was it localised to
>particular areas? Your descriptions bear little resemblance to they way
>things were done here.
Long way back. Saxon times.
The existing commons haven't in general changed their rules for many
centuries.
>>>So do I. Been farming for years. And 20 - 30 years back you would
>>>still find resentment among people who believed they had lost rights
>>>over particular pieces of land.
>>
>>Happens in cities today. That's why we have registration and that all
>>land transfers are invalid unless witnessed and in writing.
>
>People fight over commons in cities?
NO they fight over 6" strips of garden they think someone else gas
poached.
>Land registration had nothing to
>do with being able to prove your boundaries though.
That depends on whether you are talking about 6" or 6'.
>Land registration is just a
>means of ensuring government knows who owns what and where to find them.
>It is also a necessary step along the way to nationalisation of land.
Not within the EC it isn't.
The govt couldn;t afford it and in any case why bother?
>>What did the commons court (or equivalent body) do about it?
>
>What commons court? Not every common has a court.
They do although it may not be called a commons court.
How else do you resolve disputes and agree stocking etc.
>>Or was it land where individuals had been allowed to dig peat as a grace
>>and favour?
>>
>
>Nope. This was land that had been treated in exactly the same was as it
>had been before enclosures. Anybody could use it.
YOu mean nobody stopped them. That probably constitutes a right.
>No-one was aware
>that there had been an enclosure award. By the time it was sold and
>planted with forestry the use of those assumed rights were dying out -
>newcomers were buying properties in the area and they knew nothing about
>it. There were still older people here who couldn't speak English. None
>of them were going to even think of going to a solicitor to find out
>what had happened.
If you don;t guard your rights you lose them.
>I remember people coming round when they were doing some sort of commons
>registrations years back. They wanted to know what rights people had.
>When they were told anybody could use it they kept on putting leading
>questions along the lines of 'surely you mean that only the people here
>had any rights?' until a very embarrased group came out of the meeting
>having awarded themselves a batch of rights, including access, and those
>not at the meeting had nothing. (not the same common or area)
Maybe. Sounds more like there was no commons at all and it was public
land.
>it is a bit like the footpath registrations back in the '50's. If you
>take a look at the reasons for registration some of them will even state
>'unused and impassable'! I actually got copies of a selection of those!
>Pressure groups tend to get what they want. The people actually
>affected are often unaware of what is going on until it is far too late.
Don't tell us, we know.
I doubt it would now be acceptable under EU law to take rights (whether
true or false) without informing those the rights were being taken up
against.
Oz
>In article <adpipp$2sv$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster <jim@everyon
>e.knows.where.by.now> writes
>>
>>Fenris Wolf <Fen...@reality8.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:vMNPwKB4u9
>>
>>> Depends how you rate entitlement. People who had originally had the
>>> right to graze a cow could end up with nothing. What started off as a
>>> communal village ended up with land being fenced off from most of
>>them.
>>
>>remember the right to graze a cow was always conditional on fulfilling
>>obligations, rights were never "free"
>
>Depends where. These were the times when those with absolutely nothing
>could go to the outskirts of the village, clear a plot of scrub land,
>build some form of dwelling, and eventually claim squatters rights.
I don't think so. All the lands in a parish were owned either in common,
individually or by the manor.
IIRC (although this might have been in saxon times) if you could build a
dwelling and an enclosure and maintain it without opposition for a year
and a day then you could claim ownership. Unfortunately this was a bit
tricky if someone a tad more powerful claimed otherwise and turfed you
out.
>>nothing changes does it. The general population still happily pay rock
>>bottom prices for goods produced by child labour or in prison camps.
>
>The problem is that if a family is on low wages, or welfare, they have
>little option but to buy the cheapest they can get.
The majority of the UK is not in this position, yet they do.
>>those who were in danger of starving on a regular basis were jobbing
>>day labourers.
>
>Didn't really happen until the enclosures started though did it?
Eh? It happened when the serfs were freed.
Way, way before the enclosures.
>>They were the first to abandon the rural areas for the
>>relative prosperity of the industrial revolution with its year round
>>work. Prior to the 19th century, starvation was a risk for virtually any
>>rural dweller.
>
>True, but food supplies would be pretty much communal,
Are you out of your mind?
Of course food supplies were not 'communal'.
>and there wasn't
>the same attitude to people potting a hare or rabbit.
1) Rabbits were expensive high value crops and usually had one or more
warreners to look after and protect them, they were as communal as a
horse (ie not at all).
2) Deer belonged to the king and the powers that be took a distinct
aversion to people taking game. Hare is game.
>Man traps for
>trespassers were a later phenomenon.
When there was not enough cheap labour to keep enough gamekeepers.
>>you have your timing all wrong. The big revolution in the employed
>>labour was the introduction of mechanisation after the second world war.
From "A century of ag statistics"1866-1966 SO code 24-331
Nos of ag workers in GB
'000's
1921 996
1931 857
1941 759 (war year)
1951 812 (still a food deficit)
1961 535
No of holdings
1875 470
1905 432
1925 406
1944 363
1966 312
A pretty steady drop.
>Certainly that was the largest in terms of numbers, but you are
>forgetting population growth (which had only become possible thanks to
>improved agricultural methods and better food supplies)
Hardly, it was due to social security and highe urban incomes.
>In terms of the population that existed at the time of the enclosures
>there were massive population movements,
There had been for some time.
>and for those who would not go,
>trumped up charges and transportation.
Hardly. Most people who were transported were urban criminals.
I am not familiar enough with the scots situation to comment on the
decrofting (mostly to canada).
>The big landowners wanted their
>property to themselves, and had forgotten the debt they owed to the
>people who had traditionally worked that land for them.
Eh? The workers left for a better life in the cities (as has been
explained). This cost the landowners as they had no labour.
>>You had a situation where a lot of men had got off the land into the
>>army and had travelled, combined with an opening up of new urban jobs
>>and improved housing. With the better working conditions, shorter hours,
>>better housing conditions, better wages, people flocked to the towns.
>
>Yes, but at the same time we now had tractors replacing horses. The
>same number of workers was no longer needed on the land.
Hardly at the time of the enclosures.
Having however lived during this period I can assure you that it was the
reverse. Lack of staff has forced the introduction of tractors and ever
since has powered the increase in HP to allow the land to be farmed with
the staff that remained. In 30 years of farming we moved from 7 staff to
two, and I've never sacked anyone ever.
>HA! CAP was the biggest disaster farming has ever seen. It has turned
>us all into government workers. The sooner we are out of the EU and
>free to farm and work our land in the real world the better.
Er, you mean like the US 'freedom to farm' that is requiring ever larger
and truly massive subsidies.
Please try to live in the real world.
>The
>regulations are killing the industry and driving people out of their
>farms.
They are as well, but prices continually below the cost of production is
the major reason.
>>a great many similarities. You leave your rural backwater because it
>>offers greater opportunities for your children to get education and
>>whilst you have no hope of more than day labour work, they have a chance
>>of better.
>
>Did people think like that back then? Not going to look, but I have a
>feeling compulsory education came well after the enclosures and their
>effects.
People educated themselves and village (pay) schools existed before
compulsory education.
>>Rubbish . if you brought your sheep to the common to which you have no
>>rights, this means the rest of the commoners have to cut down the number
>>of their sheep, or everyones sheep suffer. Either way you are costing
>>them money or literally taking food out of their childrens mouths.
>>Commons were always farmed to the maximum of their potential at the
>>time.
>
>You are talking about a time when there was never enough fodder to keep
>animals over the winter.
There never was. That was confined to farmers NOT on commons.
>Numbers were limited because most would be
>killed at the start of the winter and salted down (no freezers!). Only
>the breeding stock stayed alive.
Absolutely. So you sure as heck weren't going to let someone without
commoners rights slow the growth of YOUR cattle. You certainly were not
going to let them graze the foggage all winter that was crucial to the
survival of your few breeding stock.
Oz
>
>There are still squatters rights even now.
Amazing how often they get evicted.
Kev Crocombe
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>Kev Crocombe writes
>>
>>There are still squatters rights even now.
>
>Amazing how often they get evicted.
>
Thats as maybe - but the rights still exist. They are timebound (7 or 8
years without formally being asked to leave I think) and then the
property is yours. Big case last year where some bloke got a house in
London because somebody forgot to send the eviction notices.
Gordon Couger
"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GriD3VBY...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
<snip>
>
> Hardly at the time of the enclosures.
> Having however lived during this period I can assure you that it was the
> reverse. Lack of staff has forced the introduction of tractors and ever
> since has powered the increase in HP to allow the land to be farmed with
> the staff that remained. In 30 years of farming we moved from 7 staff to
> two, and I've never sacked anyone ever.
>
instant availability of migrants. We mechanized because it was less
expensive than hand labor and more dependable. I have yet had to bail a
tractor out of jail.
In the 80's when farming really started to consolidate in large farms the
answer was bigger machinery. You can still find good help. The same may not
be true nearer the cities.
Interestingly there is still land that can be homesteaded in the US. Not
much and none that you can make a living on. You can also make a mining
claim on federal land and live there if you can prove it is marketable.
Gordon
Oz
>Thats as maybe - but the rights still exist. They are timebound (7 or 8
>years without formally being asked to leave I think) and then the
>property is yours.
Adverse possession : 12 years.
>Big case last year where some bloke got a house in
>London because somebody forgot to send the eviction notices.
It was a council property and thus belonged to no=one <cough>.
YOu are going to have to be well in the wilds to not be noticed by
locals and/or the squire for 12 years ...
Oz
>
>In my part of the US we never had a shortage of labor due to the almost
>instant availability of migrants.
Either illegal or allowed by special permit?
This option was not easily available in the UK although we do get a
steady trickle. I know of albanians on organic farms in scotland for
example.
There might well have been social problems in the rather hidebound UK
countryside from (say) 1600 to 1900 were significant 'furriners'
imported.
There was considerable gossip when I took on a black student for harvest
work in the 1980's, but the guy was smart and personable and won
everyone over after a few weeks of racist backchat and suggesting even
more racist taunts than the locals managed. Nice guy.
>We mechanized because it was less
>expensive than hand labor and more dependable.
Remember our equipment costs 1.5x yours and our much smaller farms were
MUCH less well suited.
>I have yet had to bail a
>tractor out of jail.
True.
>In the 80's when farming really started to consolidate in large farms the
>answer was bigger machinery. You can still find good help. The same may not
>be true nearer the cities.
It's **absolutely** impossible in the UK. The quotas (eg from poland)
are filled over a year in advance.
Jim Webster
> In article <advg7i$67p$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster
<jim@everyon
> e.knows.where.by.now> writes
> >
> >> Depends where. These were the times when those with absolutely
> >nothing
> >> could go to the outskirts of the village, clear a plot of scrub
land,
> >> build some form of dwelling, and eventually claim squatters rights.
> >
> >not in England is wasn't. Land has always had an owner, even if only
the
> >lord of the manor. (Remember the phrase manorial waste)
>
> There are still squatters rights even now.
>
yes, but that does not in any way contradict anything I have said.
'Squatters rights' are as often used by local authorities and government
departments who use them to soak up land whose ownership is in doubt or
unknown. This often happens during development schemes where odd bits
are cut off and not built on at the time, everyone assuming the parcel
of land belongs to someone else.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
Jim Webster
> In article <B6bSjnC9k7A9Ew$i...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
> <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
> >Kev Crocombe writes
> >>
> >>There are still squatters rights even now.
> >
> >Amazing how often they get evicted.
> >
>
> Thats as maybe - but the rights still exist. They are timebound (7 or
8
> years without formally being asked to leave I think) and then the
> property is yours. Big case last year where some bloke got a house in
> London because somebody forgot to send the eviction notices.
from memory 11 years
The local authority round here got a bus turning circle by using the
same system. Every Boxing day the fenced off an area of land that the
bus did turn on but with no legal right to. As no owner came forward to
tell them not to, in the 12th year it became theirs.
Your example of squatters rights merely proves my point that in the UK
land always has an owner. A house hardly spontaneously comes into being
or builds itself.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Gordon Couger
> Gordon Couger writes
> >
> >In my part of the US we never had a shortage of labor due to the almost
> >instant availability of migrants.
>
> Either illegal or allowed by special permit?
Never asked. They were contract labor paid to do a job. No payroll tax
records needed to be kept on them.
> This option was not easily available in the UK although we do get a
> steady trickle. I know of albanians on organic farms in scotland for
> example.
>
> There might well have been social problems in the rather hidebound UK
> countryside from (say) 1600 to 1900 were significant 'furriners'
> imported.
>
> There was considerable gossip when I took on a black student for harvest
> work in the 1980's, but the guy was smart and personable and won
> everyone over after a few weeks of racist backchat and suggesting even
> more racist taunts than the locals managed. Nice guy.
=============
We have substantial racial problems but it usualy does not get in the way of
work. It was a little rough the first few days I worked in a cotton gin with
an all Mexican crew and a Mexican boss but that worked out OK. The bad
racial problems are pretty well confined to the city. There may be intense
feelings in the country but most folks tend to their own business.
>
> >We mechanized because it was less
> >expensive than hand labor and more dependable.
>
> Remember our equipment costs 1.5x yours and our much smaller farms were
> MUCH less well suited.
==============
I don't expect you have any 40 foot gates so you don't have to fold the
machinery when moving from feild to feild. I know a few places that do.
>
> >I have yet had to bail a
> >tractor out of jail.
>
> True.
>
> >In the 80's when farming really started to consolidate in large farms the
> >answer was bigger machinery. You can still find good help. The same may
not
> >be true nearer the cities.
>
> It's **absolutely** impossible in the UK. The quotas (eg from poland)
> are filled over a year in advance.
=============
I don't know if it still works the same but I used to call a guy and 2 or 3
days later have all the help I needed if there wasn't some around. I expect
it works that way where they still use migrants. The rules are less strict
now than when I was using them.
There is also a very efficient communication system that alerts them to the
border patrol.
The migrant situation may change with all the worry about terrorist but I
doubt it. Our borders are a porous as barbed wire fence with no wire.
Enforcement is nearly impossible in rural areas. They can't get the local
law enforcement to cooperate or the people and a stranger sticks out like a
red flag. In my part of the world a stranger starts asking questions he gets
a blank look or sent on a wild goose chase. One county in Texas ran federal
marshals out of town once and they didn't come back. I think that was a
school bussing deal where a judge had ordered kids bussed around to balance
the racial mix in the schools and all the local people said no way.
Gordon
Five Cats
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>>
>>Horses back then weren't expensive to keep, because there was plenty of
>>land. Different for those in towns.
>
>What! Horses weren't expensive to keep? Who are you kidding?
>To work they needed lots of human food (oats), continual skilled
>mechanical repairs (blacksmiths), expensive training and skilled
>operators to work them.
AFAIK Horses only became common once some industrialisation of
agriculture had taken place so that the food (fuel) they need could be
produce. Previously oxen were used. I suspect the invention of the
horse collar had something to do with it as well.
> They needed well over an acre each (grazing and
>forage) and lots of difficult to make and expensive hay. On top of that
>to get a days work out of them you needed over an hour at each end of
>the day to service their needs and put them to bed (why an old tractor
>driver I employed said he would never go back to the horses of his
>youth).
I suspect that's true of oxen as well.
<snip>
--
Five Cats
Oz
=========Reposted to x-posted thread============
In regard to workhorses versus tractors . Horses were way more
expensive to keep . A five-acre field would only graze two plow horses
. They needed extra feed in Winter . (There was a saying in an arable
area , "The plowing only went well when the grass started to grow") .
That was in Ireland after the war . Cash was very scarce , and corn
was to raise money to pay rent and rates , not to be fed to horses .
It took a half hour every morning to catch the horses and put on
tackle . The English (arable) acre was roughly what could be plowed in
a day . (The Irish (pasture) acre was what would keep a cow .) There
was a lot of emphasis when I was going to school about how the
Cromwell's soldiers who took over farms in Ireland in lieu of wages
were granted the land in English acres , but took over land measured
in Irish , which would be about 8/5 more . Purely arable farms would
have the horses stabled , which would make starting up faster .
--
Greymaus;
Follow up , don't e-mail , my killfile is savage ;
Next Year In , well , wherever ;
Oz
>
>AFAIK Horses only became common once some industrialisation of
>agriculture had taken place so that the food (fuel) they need could be
>produce. Previously oxen were used. I suspect the invention of the
>horse collar had something to do with it as well.
>
>> They needed well over an acre each (grazing and
>>forage) and lots of difficult to make and expensive hay. On top of that
>>to get a days work out of them you needed over an hour at each end of
>>the day to service their needs and put them to bed (why an old tractor
>>driver I employed said he would never go back to the horses of his
>>youth).
>
>I suspect that's true of oxen as well.
Yes, but less grooming and lower external running costs, and you get to
eat them after a few years. The main problem with oxen are that they are
ruminants and so need rumination time. This means a much shorter working
day, perhaps only four to six hours. It's probably better to think of
them as much more low running cost (grazing, not expensive oats; little
expensive smithy needs) dual-purpose meat and traction animals.
Lotus
Oz wrote:
>
> =========Reposted to x-posted thread============
>
> In regard to workhorses versus tractors . Horses were way more
> expensive to keep . A five-acre field would only graze two plow horses
> . They needed extra feed in Winter . (There was a saying in an arable
> area , "The plowing only went well when the grass started to grow") .
> That was in Ireland after the war . Cash was very scarce , and corn
> was to raise money to pay rent and rates , not to be fed to horses .
> It took a half hour every morning to catch the horses and put on
> tackle . The English (arable) acre was roughly what could be plowed in
> a day . (The Irish (pasture) acre was what would keep a cow .) There
> was a lot of emphasis when I was going to school about how the
> Cromwell's soldiers who took over farms in Ireland in lieu of wages
> were granted the land in English acres , but took over land measured
> in Irish , which would be about 8/5 more . Purely arable farms would
> have the horses stabled , which would make starting up faster .
That's as may be. Consider though that commonly horses were shared
between two or more neighbors who'd usually also assist each the other.
The community was much closer in those times with far more interaction
and cooperation. Much has changed. There are still many about here
who worked with horses and grew their own produce. They tell me they
lacked for nothing. And I have heard time and time again.. were much
happier all round.
Jim Webster
Five Cats <cats...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r1DvniAg...@nevis-view.demon.co.uk...
> In article <I6OQziBp...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
> <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
> <snip>
> >>
> >>Horses back then weren't expensive to keep, because there was plenty
of
> >>land. Different for those in towns.
> >
> >What! Horses weren't expensive to keep? Who are you kidding?
> >To work they needed lots of human food (oats), continual skilled
> >mechanical repairs (blacksmiths), expensive training and skilled
> >operators to work them.
>
>
> AFAIK Horses only became common once some industrialisation of
> agriculture had taken place so that the food (fuel) they need could be
> produce. Previously oxen were used. I suspect the invention of the
> horse collar had something to do with it as well.
I would refer people to Engels "Alexander the Great and the Logistics of
the Macedonian Army" where he points out that prior to the development
of the horse collar, draft horses could pull little more than they could
carry (but obviously if you hitched several to a cart they could pull
bigger things) which is why the Macedonian army managed with pack
animals rather than carts in their baggage.
Interestingly there was little difference in cost per mile hauled (or
food eaten per mile hauled) between human porters and horses.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Oz
>
>That's as may be. Consider though that commonly horses were shared
>between two or more neighbors who'd usually also assist each the other.
I'm sorry but you do not 'share' valuable animals that are easily
damaged. Whoever told you this is pulling your leg. People might share
the work, ie co-operate, but letting someone use your horse (which may
well be worth more than your house) essentially didn't happen.
>The community was much closer in those times with far more interaction
>and cooperation.
That is certainly true. There were also long standing feuds and families
who didn't speak to each other for generations.
>Much has changed. There are still many about here
>who worked with horses and grew their own produce. They tell me they
>lacked for nothing.
Then they are lying, have selective memories or you only speak to the
wealthy.
>And I have heard time and time again.. were much
>happier all round.
Do come off it. I know quite a few smallholders and old farm workers and
I've been farming for over 30 years. For most life was a struggle in the
past (say pre-WW2), although of course large farms could be highly
profitable. Even so a surprising number of them went to the wall as
well.