Potential sites for new mega-solar farms

[Spectric]

Whereas, a field that is grazed by animals is an amazing micro ecological miracle because that is how it has developed over millennia.

I would suggest that it might be to do with what comes out their rear ends, things like dung beetles and flies.

Look at the contents of Vegan 'Cheese'.

That would be another idea for the support under a lathe, already suggested are conveyor belt rubber and horse mating but vegan cheese is another option.

 

[niall Y]

Hmm ... to say that beef cattle are fed on grass seems to conjure up the idyll of sunny meadows full of diverse plants and teeming with insects. However, the reality can be very different.

In this part of the world they practice a form of remote-grazing. The cattle are not taken to the fields, so much as the grass is taken to the cattle. The cycle runs along the lines of, first applying weed killer, then ploughing, harrowing and applying fertilizer, followed by seeding. As the grass grows selective weed killers are used which ensures that the grass, and only the grass, grows, Several cuts are taken off the field as the season proceeds followed by the application of more fertilizer. The crop can be in the form of silage, haylage , or hay. Every year a certain percentage is again re seeded..

With silage, whole fleets of tractors and high-sided trailers are used to collect and ferry the cargo, in journeys of several miles. This work is usually undertaken by contractors.
The cattle are kept under cover in winter, and restricted to a few home fields in the summer.. . They are of course grass-fed, but not as we would like to think.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Hmm ... to say that beef cattle are fed on grass seems to conjure up the idyll of sunny meadows full of diverse plants and teeming with insects. However, the reality can be very different.

In this part of the world they practice a form of remote-grazing. The cattle are not taken to the fields, so much as the grass is taken to the cattle. The cycle runs along the lines of, first applying weed killer, then ploughing, harrowing and applying fertilizer, followed by seeding. As the grass grows selective weed killers are used which ensures that the grass, and only the grass, grows, Several cuts are taken off the field as the season proceeds followed by the application of more fertilizer. The crop can be in the form of silage, haylage , or hay. Every year a certain percentage is again re seeded..

With silage, whole fleets of tractors and high-sided trailers are used to collect and ferry the cargo, in journeys of several miles. This work is usually undertaken by contractors.
The cattle are kept under cover in winter, and restricted to a few home fields in the summer.. . They are of course grass-fed, but not as we would like to think.

Of course the cows aren’t out in the fields all year round it destroys the fields. That’s why hay, haylage and silage are a staple part of the cows winter diet. That has been the case since before Constable painted the Haywain (high sided trailer for hay) crossing the river. Of course it’s more industrial today but the concept of cows grazing in meadows all year round has never been a fact of farming.

 

[Jacob]

Yes, Jacob, but the top wealth owners also provide, I think from memory, around 1/3rd of the total income tax take in this country. They also buy more and more expensive goods and therefore pay much more of the total VAT.

If they bought less we could tax them more. Maybe just take top rates back to 60% as it was under Thatcher.
Low taxes since then haven't produced any improvement in the economy or society, unless you count top end spending on yachts cars, private aircraft etc.

These two taxes are two of the major sources of government income.

Less VAT and more income tax would be fairer. And higher rates on unearned income.

So, given that there is a limited total wealth,

Not according to Starmer - he's going for growth and hence more tax take.

would giving (how?) more to the bottom, increase, decrease or leave the income tax/VAT tax take the same?

I think we know the answer to that.

..

Yep. Lower tax and higher benefits at the poor end helps boost economy as it gets spent quickly (and not all booze and fags!). At the top end it gets frittered away on luxuries or stashed off shore etc. They don't need it and what goes around comes around.
Think of the state as the engine of the economy and taxation as the fuel.

 

[Jacob]

Of course the cows aren’t out in the fields all year round it destroys the fields. That’s why hay, haylage and silage are a staple part of the cows winter diet. That has been the case since before Constable painted the Haywain (high sided trailer for hay) crossing the river. Of course it’s more industrial today but the concept of cows grazing in meadows all year round has never been a fact of farming.

And of course animal feed of every sort means a huge increase in arable land for hay, turnips, beans etc.
Easy to misunderstand but a vegetarian diet need much less land for equivalent amount of human nutrition. Less CO2 or methane, more space for wind/solar generation.

 

[niall Y]

Of course the cows aren’t out in the fields all year round it destroys the fields. That’s why hay, haylage and silage are a staple part of the cows winter diet. That has been the case since before Constable painted the Haywain (high sided trailer for hay) crossing the river. Of course it’s more industrial today but the concept of cows grazing in meadows all year round has never been a fact of farming.

Apologies, if I have caused any confusion here. I was simply pointing out that cattle are less frequently taken to the fields to graze, but that they are now kept mostly under cover and the grass is brought to them. The best they can hope is to be let out into a field adjacent to their housing during the daylight hours.
I'm puzzled by your response because I never stated ( or implied ) that cattle are kept in the fields all year round. If you can point out that part in my post I will happily edit it, so things appear clearer.

 

[Vulcan]

Before my local farm stopped dairy farming you could see cows out in one of the fields for many months during the year so I did a Google.
https://www.agriland.co.uk/farming-news/grazing-season-2022-knowing-when-to-call-it-a-day/

 

[niall Y]

And of course animal feed of every sort means a huge increase in arable land for hay, turnips, beans etc.
Easy to misunderstand but a vegetarian diet need much less land for equivalent amount of human nutrition. Less CO2 or methane, more space for wind/solar generation.

One has to ask the question as to whether a vegetarian diet is applicable, or indeed desirable across the globe. I think the Inuit would struggle to grow anything. Hence their - far from vegetarian - traditional diet.
Land past a certain latitude is useless for growing crops unless you can grow under cover, supplying heat and topping up the light levels.. So much easier to do in the warmer parts of the globe
Even in this part of the world,( West Wales ) it is a challenge to grow food. The only thing that will grow reliably well is grass. This, I suppose, is why they farm sheep.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Yep. Lower tax and higher benefits at the poor end helps boost economy as it gets spent quickly (and not all booze and fags!). At the top end it gets frittered away on luxuries or stashed off shore etc. They don't need it and what goes around comes around.
Think of the state as the engine of the economy and taxation as the fuel.

Your pre-conceived biases are showing.

Give more of society's wealth to the poorer and they will understandably tend to spend it on the immediate - food, rent, consumer durables.

Concerned about value for money, they may prioritise cheaper imported goods vs UK manufactured - the real impact of wealth re-distribution through taxation may be some relief for the poor and needy offset by a balance of payments problem.

Leaving wealth with the already well off - some may be spent generally benefitting the economy, and some only be digitally evidenced in offshore tax haven balances. More importantly, unlike the poor, they have the flexibility and mass to invest creating jobs and more wealth.

Taxation and redistribution of wealth and effort is a compromise - meeting the short term needs of the poorer vs the longer term benefit to society as a whole of investment. We need both.

 

[Jacob]

One has to ask the question as to whether a vegetarian diet is applicable, or indeed desirable across the globe. I think the Inuit would struggle to grow anything. Hence their - far from vegetarian - traditional diet.

The way things are warming up there'll potatoes growing on Baffin Island in no time!

Land past a certain latitude is useless for growing crops unless you can grow under cover, supplying heat and topping up the light levels.. So much easier to do in the warmer parts of the globe
Even in this part of the world,( West Wales ) it is a challenge to grow food. The only thing that will grow reliably well is grass. This, I suppose, is why they farm sheep.

There'll be enough spare capacity further east to supply darkest Wales, which in the meantime could be reforested and re peated, to sequester carbon.
It's all very hypothetical - I think in reality we are going to **** in a handcart.

 

[Spectric]

The way things are warming up there'll potatoes growing on Baffin Island in no time!

The good old british spud could become non viable to grow in the uk having watched a program where a farmer was saying that for decades they have ground spuds but now it is just to wet and they rot. Maybe paddy fields and make rice our staple.

 

[Jacob]

Your pre-conceived biases are showing.

You mean the facts?

Give more of society's wealth to the poorer and they will understandably tend to spend it on the immediate - food, rent, consumer durables.

Concerned about value for money, they may prioritise cheaper imported goods vs UK manufactured - the real impact of wealth re-distribution through taxation may be some relief for the poor and needy offset by a balance of payments problem.

Quite the opposite. Given more money and they can afford better quality and benefit the UK economy instead of buying cheap stuff from abroad, or from poorly paid workers here.

Leaving wealth with the already well off - some may be spent generally benefitting the economy,

It isn't though is it? By definition they are hanging on to it instead of spending it.

and some only be digitally evidenced in offshore tax haven balances. More importantly, unlike the poor, they have the flexibility and mass to invest creating jobs and more wealth.

They don't though do they? That's the whole problem - wealth doesn't trickle down it goes up and stays there.

Taxation and redistribution of wealth and effort is a compromise -

No it's the way to make the economy work. It isn't a compromise at all it's a basis requirement. There is no alternative.

meeting the short term needs of the poorer vs the longer term benefit to society

meeting the short term needs of the poorer is in the longer term to the benefit of society

as a whole of investment. We need both.

Both what? We need money to circulate, to drive the economic machine, whether its wages or investment.
Simplest demo of this is to play Monopoly (the board game). As property settles in fewer hands the game slows down and eventually stops. The only way to get it going again is to share it all out again. To keep it going indefinitely it has to be redistributed continuously. In fact the game was designed to demonstrate precisely that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord's_Game

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Both what? We need money to circulate, to drive the economic machine, whether its wages or investment.
Simplest demo of this is to play Monopoly (the board game). As property settles in fewer hands the game slows down and eventually stops. The only way to get it going again is to share it all out again. To keep it going indefinitely it has to be redistributed continuously. In fact the game was designed to demonstrate precisely that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord's_Game

The link you provided identifies two sets of rules for the game:

The set had rules for two different games, anti-monopolist and Monopolist. The anti-monopolist rules reward all players during wealth creation, whereas the monopolist rules incentivize forming monopolies and forcing opponents out of the game

The competitive form became the commercial success. The other would have failed as it has little regard for normal human behaviours:

• human beings are mostly competitive - traditional sports - running, fighting, shooting, weightlifting, swimming, darts, football, tennis, archery etc etc etc.
• even team games need other teams to compete with
• a board game intended to keep players playing several weeks after the game started is an unlikely proposition
• only those community activities which benefit all members are likely to be pursued by the community cooperating as a whole - eg: some harvesting, community buildings etc.

The anti-monopolist game does not prove the wisdom of redistribution, rather the futility of policies which require regular fundamental intervention to create even a pretence of effectiveness.

 

[Jacob]

...
The anti-monopolist game does not prove the wisdom of redistribution, rather the futility of policies which require regular fundamental intervention to create even a pretence of effectiveness.

Surely exactly the opposite "The anti-monopolist rules reward all players during wealth creation,"
So you think it's OK for people to be forced out of the economy into destitution, and you'd call that "effective"? Anyway wouldn't the trickle down theory work for them? If not why not?
If "no intervention" works why has the neo-liberal nonsense of 45 years of austerity followed by brexit, been such an abject failure?

 

[TRITON]

Maybe paddy fields and make rice our staple.

With the amount of rain we get these days that might be a good idea.
Besides many cultures live off rice as the main staple and it does them pretty well.

Obviously meat as well, but there is no harm in a balanced diet. People who eat vegan exclusively are kind of kidding themselves, especially in a harsh northern climate that we have. It might be ok in much warmer climates, but in the UK we really need more protein.(But if anyone wants to be vegan or veggie, best of darn luck to them)

Dont get me wrong. many people opt for a vegetarian diet due to their moral code on harvesting animals for sustenance and i applaud that, but it isnt suitable for everyone and if it came down to it, it would be impossible to produce enough veg only diet for 67 million people without 60% of that population going over wholly to food production, and even then i doubt we have enough arable land

 

[Delaney]

It's really not made with the best of meat, unlike a small retail butchers, where all the meat going into their sausages is trimming from grade A class 1 carcasses
The likes of Richmond and other mass produced sausages is coming from breeding pigs who have reached the end of their working life.

Richmond ingredients
Pork (42%), Water, Rusk (Wheat), Pork Fat, Starch (Wheat), Soya Protein, Salt, Stabilisers: Diphosphates, Guar Gum*, Flavourings, Preservative: Sodium Metabisulphite**, Antioxidants: Ascorbic Acid, Alpha Tocopherol, Colour: Carmine

Some right nasty things in there. Which i should add is fine as a one off, but over a lifetime of consumption can bring about many problems for the body.

Half of those aren’t ingredients, they’re elements.

 

[Delaney]

You mean the facts?

Quite the opposite. Given more money and they can afford better quality and benefit the UK economy instead of buying cheap stuff from abroad, or from poorly paid workers here.

It isn't though is it? By definition they are hanging on to it instead of spending it.

They don't though do they? That's the whole problem - wealth doesn't trickle down it goes up and stays there.

No it's the way to make the economy work. It isn't a compromise at all it's a basis requirement. There is no alternative.

meeting the short term needs of the poorer is in the longer term to the benefit of society

Both what? We need money to circulate, to drive the economic machine, whether its wages or investment.
Simplest demo of this is to play Monopoly (the board game). As property settles in fewer hands the game slows down and eventually stops. The only way to get it going again is to share it all out again. To keep it going indefinitely it has to be redistributed continuously. In fact the game was designed to demonstrate precisely that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord's_Game

Monopoly is a game based on luck. The throwing of a dice is an outcome that nobody can control.
The point of such games is more like ‘you have to be in it and willing to take risk in order to gain wealth. When presented with opportunity you should chose wisely’.
So the best we can ask for is to educate our children well, instil in them the ability to take risk and encourage the free flow of information.
Create a fair environment were all are playing by the same rules and move forward.

 

[Jacob]

Monopoly is a game based on luck. The throwing of a dice is an outcome that nobody can control.
The point of such games is more like ‘you have to be in it and willing to take risk in order to gain wealth. When presented with opportunity you should chose wisely’.

What usually happens with the board game is that any advantage gained, whether by luck or judgment, tends to grow, until the game becomes so unbalanced that others go "bankrupt" as property accumulates in fewer and fewer hands.
Very analogous to the so-called "free market".
Thomas Piketty says more or less the same thing but in quarter of a million words, in "Capital in the Twenty First Century"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century

​

 

[Scruples]

Monopoly is a game based on luck. The throwing of a dice is an outcome that nobody can control.
The point of such games is more like ‘you have to be in it and willing to take risk in order to gain wealth. When presented with opportunity you should chose wisely’.
So the best we can ask for is to educate our children well, instil in them the ability to take risk and encourage the free flow of information.
Create a fair environment were all are playing by the same rules and move forward.

Indeed, that'a very true; bit like life, really. We all start with nothing and, based on luck, like where you're born, and judgement, like which investment to make, whether it's in a financial one or a direction in life, will depend your outcome.

We are, after all, only here by a random mixing of genes for parents, partners or lovers, and we pick up the mantle and carry it until we croak, filling in the time the best and most comfortable ways we can.

 

[John Brown]

Indeed, that'a very true; bit like life, really. We all start with nothing and, based on luck, like where you're born, and judgement, like which investment to make, whether it's in a financial one or a direction in life, will depend your outcome.

We are, after all, only here by a random mixing of genes for parents, partners or lovers, and we pick up the mantle and carry it until we croak, filling in the time the best and most comfortable ways we can.

That's quite enough philosophy for a weekday.