Site Meter

Friday, November 2, 2012

Best can-squashed-into-tarmack, ever!


17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Interesting on the front page of today's paper Rob, maybe the farmers aren't the only ones full of shit???

robertguyton said...

It is an interesting story, Anonymous and I'm keen to see how it's resolved. I wouldn't agree with you though, when you say that farmers are full of shit.

Anonymous said...

Oh dear. Was it necessary to repeat the language?
It would appear as though the Anti farming group is revolting.
Mr E

robertguyton said...

Anonymous seemed keen to use the phrase, Mr E, repeating it half a dozen times. He needs to be more careful with his phraseology if he wants to make progress with his message.

There's an "Anti-farming group"?

The way I see it, farming, like teaching, will always have those who criticize it and that can be healthy. I notice that those who express their reservations about farm-practice here, don't say "farmers are stupid", or "farming is evil", but instead question specific practices. That seems healthy to me. As with teaching and the period when the caning of students was challenged by the public, 'industries' can learn a great deal from their critics.

Anonymous said...

I think it is healthy for farmers to be continually evolving and improving. I think it is healthy for them to receive criticism. What is most healthy is for them to debate when the criticism comes from ill informed. Sadly farmers are often head down ..... up which can make them an easy target. I do see some taking cheap shots when farmers are trying hard to improve and that upsets me.
I am told the biggest environmental issue facing Southland farmers is nitrates in water ways. I have asked a few 'experts' the solution and each has a differing opinion. It is a complex issue with no simple fixes. If the best brains who have studied farming to death can't agree, why is it right expertise is sort from Joe public with particular enthusiasm? The cynic in me wonders if it is simpler to push regional rules through with public pressure rather than good science?
The example you used, around canning of students. Teachers rallied the public. Rather than the government rallying the public as appears to me to be happening. I imagine a day when the tide will change. Like your cartoon could suggest. One farmer will stand up followed by many.
Mr E

robertguyton said...

Nitrates in the waterways?
In the ground water seems worse to me. From there, nitrates can so easily be drawn up through bores as drinking water for humans and stock. That's a worry, I reckon. Waterways seem the least affected to me (p-limited and all that) but estuaries and lagoons, that's another matter altogether as we have seen (Waituna) and are about to see (Jacob's River, New River).
Rick Pridmore was interesting. He emphasised the need for action as soon as a common-sense position was formulated and warned against over-reliance on science - the never-ending research you describe. Rick represents DairyNZ's new face, as you might know. It's time to take action. Delay means disaster for our environment.
I don't believe your vision of the up-standing farmer will be realised at all. Federated Farmers try that and are increasingly lampooned when they try it.

Anonymous said...

Yes endless science Robert. Without science farmers are only two steps from the dark ages using things like hand drills, bicycles and hand tools. Wait just a minute!
Science will be endless because it leads to progress. And I am pleased to see farmers using science to find solutions. The grasslands conference in Gore is loaded with science around environmental questions. This pleases me.
The challenge is putting science into practical solutions. We know with biological science, that it can be difficult to prove things beyond reasonable doubt. Your green house gas cynics prove that. To me the best progress can be made by asking the right questions and getting the best science to prove results beyond reasonable doubt. I think there can be times when science can't answer all questions around some issues. At those times the options of 'wait for answers' or 'guess the right path forward' exist. If the 'guess the right path forward' option is taken, all parties must be aware of the the risky steps taken. Your concern around GE release could be an example.
I can't agree with you about Feds being 'lampooned'. I only saw one person trying to do that and I thought it to be highly inappropriate. If Feds can rally that amount of support when a relatively small number of farmers are affected by a conversion rule, imagine the support they will get when attempts are made to drag the many in.

robertguyton said...

Bicycles are "from the dark ages"?
Surely, you jest!
Bicycle technology is very sophisticated - Carbon fibre frames, ultra-light wheel-rims etc...
I'm not sure you've got that right at all, Mr E.
The Feds lost a lot of public support around their behaviour in the Council chamber when they booed Hugh Gardyne, so far as the feedback I received showed. They aren't in a good position to 'stand up' like the figure in the cartoon your so admired. They will fail if they try it, in my opinion. If they 'drag in the many', the wider public will slate them. I look forward to seeing which of us is correct.
Ge's 'risky steps' are completely unnecessary, in my opinion. I can see no need, aside from greed.
Science is, of course, essential to all decisions around practices that effect the environment (what doesn't?)I'm all for it. It's the interpretation of science where politics intervenes, eh!

Anonymous said...

I can't see a bicycle pulling a plough, or driving a post in, although I have to admit to using one to bring cows in on occasion. But good luck promoting that solution. Carbon fibre or not, I could not endorse it on a modern farm. Such things hark from the dark ages or the mechanically inept in my case.
I suspect you are right about the short term implications of said Feds Preds actions. Although I think the long term implication was a marketing lottery win for them. Eventually it highlighted the issue at hand and from what I have seen attracted membership. A silver lining I guess.
To be frank I didn't imagine the Feds in the cartoon image. And it is interesting to see you surmising their failure. If I was a member I would be outraged by such a suggestion. If I force myself to think about the Feds in that cartoon, I suddenly imagined some people standing up. Good luck with that line of relationship building.

Again I disagree with you about GE. I believe some level of risk is tolerable. Imagine if GE could cure some disease. Risk needs to be weighed up with reward.

robertguyton said...

Mr E

(I've cut and pasted your comment and inserted my responses in italics)

I can't see a bicycle pulling a plough, or driving a post in, although I have to admit to using one to bring cows in on occasion.
Perhaps you lack imagination, Mr E :-)
Bicycle technology is sophisticated and the designers, if directed toward agriculture and a diminished fuel supply, could come up with something that would surprise you, I'm sure

But good luck promoting that solution.
I wasn't.
Carbon fibre or not, I could not endorse it on a modern farm. Such things hark from the dark ages
I still don't get your 'dark ages' comment in relation to bicycles. I suspect the modern bicycle designers could sit beside those who designed the latest Mars exploration vehicles and contribute worthwhile ideas.
or the mechanically inept in my case.
I suspect you are right about the short term implications of said Feds Preds actions. Although I think the long term implication was a marketing lottery win for them. Eventually it highlighted the issue at hand and from what I have seen attracted membership. A silver lining I guess.
They may have attracted more members, but will have cemented the methodology into place in their thinking, and it's not a winning strategy, in my opinion. So there will be more farmers behaving in that way? The public might let you know what they think of that.
To be frank I didn't imagine the Feds in the cartoon image. And it is interesting to see you surmising their failure. If I was a member I would be outraged by such a suggestion.
Are the Feds so sensitive they can't bear to have someone like me say 'That's not going to work'? Goodness!
If I force myself to think about the Feds in that cartoon, I suddenly imagined some people standing up. Good luck with that line of relationship building.
Relationships that are honest are the most valuable, imho.

Again I disagree with you about GE. I believe some level of risk is tolerable. Imagine if GE could cure some disease. Risk needs to be weighed up with reward.
Curing disease through the application of ge in the lab is a tolerable use of the method. The release of ge into the field isn't. There's a huge difference in the two scenarios.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the bicycle concept. I think you simply lack a market.
Regarding Feds. I suspect we are on different pages. I am guessing you are referring to the booing? I think that was a bit of a one off. I would have thought you of all people would have understood public criticism of a leader when that person does not represent the of the majority.
Does the council not have an honest relationship with the Feds?
And GE. If scientists found a plant that would grow and feed the starving would that be ok? Say on their back door not on NZ farms.
Mr E

Anonymous said...

Also regarding your question of Feds and sensitivity. Imagine me saying "Robert Guyton improving the environment - that is bound to fail". I just would not say such a thing even if I thought it. It is rude, I think. And rudeness has no place between farmers and the council.
Mr E

robertguyton said...

I wouldn't mind at all if you said that, Mr E, knowing that I already have and that my success in that field is escalating. I would regard your 'challenge' as one worth taking up and would be motivated to increase my effort toward improving the environment.
You Feds are so sensitive.
In any case, you said, "One farmer will stand up followed by many." and my response was, not that they would fail at farming, but that their 'standing up' would seen by the public, not as an admirable thing, but as the same old behaviour from a Federation that already has a reputation for bullying their way through issues. That's the sort of comment that is made out in the wider community btw, fyi.

robertguyton said...

Further to your earlier post...
"Does the council not have an honest relationship with the Feds?"
I don't quite know what you mean here. perhaps you'd like to expand - certainly my own relationship with the Feds is open, honest and forthright, wouldn't you say?

And GE. If scientists found a plant that would grow and feed the starving would that be ok? Say on their back door not on NZ farms.

You have the belief in a "miracle" plant - Golden rice or something like that? That's worrying. I firmly believe that all of the plants we need are here already or can be produced by conventional breeding and that it is other factors such as trade processes and politics of all stripes that results in starvation around the globe. there will be no wonder plant to save mankind. A change in thinking will though. Fonterra's blue-print is, to my mind, heading in the wrong direction altogether.

Anonymous said...

Again I would not say such a thing. I would consider it to be rude. Just to be clear.

"You Feds" Who are you talking to? Me? Surely not? Back to the old days of assumptions.

Yes I said "one farmer followed by many" but was not referring to the Feds. Correct me if I am wrong but you are telling me that farmers standing up for what they consider is right, is considered poorly by the public. I think not.
Do you consider peaceful protesting bullying? I dont think the public think that. Your interpretation of the general public view and mine are quite different.

Miracle plant? Who said miracle plant? What is worrying? Are you asking questions and then answering them in the same breath?
I do believe that GE has potential to improve favourable plant characteristics at a rate faster than plant selection techniques. For some that could mean faster selection for drought tolerance. For others it could be more production. Both things that are admirable when considering the number of starving people and the growing population.

What is this change in thinking you promote?
Mr E

robertguyton said...

"Correct me if I am wrong but you are telling me that farmers standing up for what they consider is right, is considered poorly by the public. I think not."
Yes, I do think that the public consider farmer protest of the sort the Federation has involved itself in in the past, s thought poorly of by the general public. Also the kind of protest that involved driving tractors up Parliament's steps has damaged the farmers brand. The seeming climate-change denier position of the farming community will be the one that really does damage in the near future, I predict.
It depends. I know many people who thought the turnout at ES by farmers, though they stood quietly, was bullying. I'm not saying it was, but many I spoke to volunteered that view. It's all about perception, not about intention, when it comes to the public.
I do believe that GE has potential to improve favourable plant characteristics at a rate faster than plant selection techniques.
So what? Why is faster, better? The same gains, made at a slightly slower pace, don't carry the risk of the ge-d plants, so why use the methods? At any rate, as I said, it's not just a matter of better plants, there are other more important aspects of food-availability that would resolve the issue. As I described, you favour the 'magic bullet' solution - you only talk about ge.The change of thinking I describe is right there, in my penultimate sentences.

Anonymous said...

We will have to agree to disagree when it comes to the public view of farmers. I suspect the public you talk to and the public I talk to are at different ends of the spectrum.
And I dont see farmers as being climate change deniers. If anything they are climate change believers. In my experience the farmers that have been around long enough believe some for of climate change is happening. Almost without exception. Of course I generally lead the question with, "the last 3 years, is it natural cycles or some from of change". I suspect you may not be casting your net far enough to get a fair response.
Indeed I believe beef and lamb has been running seminars on climate change and these have been well recieved.

Why is faster better?
Let me give you some population figures.
1 AD 170 million
1800AD 1 billion
1930 2 billion
1960 3 billion
1975 4 billion
1987 5 billion
1999 6 billion
2030 est 8 billion
Frightening. Even with rapid growing GE plants, I think we will increase the number of starving, due to our inability to supply.

Why will you not promote your solutions? Are you embarrassed by them?