Recent comments by: Belle
Agribuzz with David Leyonhjelm
You need a researcher, David.
Mr Sims has said in the media that ACCC did not support a Code etc from Consumer Forum and the egg industry says 10,000birds/ha range area since ACCC put 20,000 out for public comment, a couple of years ago.
John: chicken tractors are not used by professional free range farmers as most have an internal stocking density which way exceeds the law. If you know of any who do, you should let the regulator in your State know.
What you are hearing is the dis-satisfaction of some people with how the levies are used and by whom. The majority are not dis-satisfied with the levies themselves.
The comment by 'bg' is not true and certainly does not apply to egg laying hens. Laying hens are not grown quickly. If they were their bones would not be strong enough to put shells on the eggs.
In scientific terms, there is no evidence that chickens suffer any more disease in barn and free range than in cages. Disease levels are similar across cage, barn and free range environments, with the key determinants of hen disease being husbandry rather than the system used.
I agree David. Baby boomers are fitter than their parents, young people who leave the farm and return usually have added skills to benefit the business, and company and trust structures mean that some-one who is not running the business is classified as the 'farmer'. The reality is that the real farmer is the person who deals with the bank and runs the business.
Most of these comments are aimed at shooting the ACCC. What about the perpetrators? Why accuse the ACCC of not doing what you want them to do when you don't know if they are doing it or not? Just because they have not done a media release does not mean that the work is not being done.
Free range farming is not all about outside stocking density. Food safety, animal welfare and biosecurity are more important.
It is a pity when people comment without understanding the current system.
We need a strong NFF to deal with those big issues which are national and affect everyone.
State farmer organisations represent farmers at State level.
Politicians want a view with authority (ie representing a large number of farmers) not a few ideas from a few people. Our state and national organisations can do that.
It is a bit more complicated than that Lorax. Farmers could use forests as sinks but if they wanted to receive credits they had to sell the carbon to some-one. Any use of that carbon (eg grazing or picking up wood or branches coming off in a storm) would have to be compensated to the person giving the credits. It is not an easy source of money.
The Victorian system works. It is based on risk assessment and fits well into QA programs. The C'W wants regulation for farmers, and money and power for themselves.
Between the comments on this blog and the comments on others - especially climate change - I think Bushie Bill is a Labor spin doctor. Check his comment under: "ETS the only option, says Treasury on climate change".
Politicians - not just Tony Burke - like to meet farmers and others one-to-one in largish numbers. They can then pick the message they like and say it came from consultation with a farmer.
Another shot at raising your public profile, Malcolm? This will not necessarily equate with making it as prime minister.
You are so prejudiced, Bushie Bill! Hopefully you are not a politician. Why should we support a tax take by either political party?
This is good news. If the plants pass all their trials, farmers will have more choice and the plants will use less water. Good for the environment and the economy.
The bottom line is that the grains industry cannot afford another failed national group. The grains industry needs strong national representation - not a bun fight. There are weaknesses in both proposals. How about sitting down and looking at what an organisation built on the strengths in both proposals looks like? Radical, but it could work!
Madge is a committed 'greenie' organisation and has close ties to the Greens. They should declare this alliance so that people are informed. GM cannot damage kidneys and liver, Vicki Wilson. GM is a technology. You cannot eat it.
Those products which are approved by the OGTR are as least as safe as the non-GM version of the product. Products which contain a GM protein must be labelled by law. Liquids do not, by definition, contain a GM protein (ie a solid). You can use fat if you wish, or olive oil etc. That is fine. You can also be a Luddite, if you choose. That is fine, too.
Other people do not think like that and are open to change. They also have rights and should not be harangued for their choices.
Tony Burke is looking at the facts, ggwagga. The facts show that the products are safe.