Australian Beef - A huge threat to U.K. farmers

It was inevitable, wasn't it? The Government now has to be seen to be delivering Brexit – never mind the cost.

I apologise if the following has been posted before but it's worth reminding ourselves what this Government is prepared to do in the name of Brexit. The article is from 2020.

^”Parliament will not have a final say on the trade deals negotiated by the government after an amendment to the Trade Bill was defeated in a House of Commons vote on Monday evening (20 July).
The bill, which is currently going through parliament, provides the legal framework for post-Brexit UK trade policy.
The amendment to guarantee MPs a final vote on trade agreements was rejected by a majority of 63 in a victory for the government.”^

”In the US, Japan and the EU, the legislative bodies all have a final vote on the ratification of trade deals. ”

”The government also defeated amendments designed to legally bind government to maintain existing foods and environmental standards and to remove the NHS from the negotiating table in future talks.”

www.export.org.uk/news/518229/Parliament-loses-right-to-vote-on-trade-deals-as-Trade-Bill-amendment-is-defeated-by-government.htm

vegansrock

* Callistemon * I am against this trade deal , which is not just about cows, as it brings in lots of issues of food standards, climate change, environmental concerns and animal welfare. All intertwined. People should eat less, not more meat, for all the above concerns, as meat eating is one of the biggest factors in climate change and environmental damage. I understand people may choose to eat meat, and if so, I believe should eat less meat of a higher quality, locally produced, not more meat of a lower quality from further away.

The biggest factor is population growth followed by improving lifestyle in developing countries, they want more of what we’ve got.

* Callistemon * I am against this trade deal , which is not just about cows, as it brings in lots of issues of food standards, climate change, environmental concerns and animal welfare. All intertwined. People should eat less, not more meat, for all the above concerns, as meat eating is one of the biggest factors in climate change and environmental damage. I understand people may choose to eat meat, and if so, I believe should eat less meat of a higher quality, locally produced, not more meat of a lower quality from further away.

I am just very puzzled why a vegan should be so concerned about the quality of beef sold in the UK and the livelihoods of UK cattle farmers.

It seems very strange to me.

Liz Truss speaking

‘Hormone-injected beef will not be allowed in the UK, full stop, so he doesn’t need to worry about that.’

She added: ‘That is banned already. We already import Australian beef and lamb into the UK. That Australian beef and lamb has to fit UK standards.’

There has been a big consumer reaction to Beef Imports, currently it looks like a 15 yr transition period

As member of the EU our trade with our nearest neighbours amounted to £294billion and amounted to 43% of all outward trade. Since Brexit the figure has fallen quite dramatically, but the EU is still our biggest customer.

Now to try to fill the hole left by the falling trade with the EU we have first turned to a country 9000+ miles away, with the vast implications of massive more emissions, difficult logistics, and the fact that we export every little to Australia except Scottish Whisky and London beer, amounting to £40 million pa.

The trade deal is set to increase our exports to Australia by a paltry 7% representing a minuscule added value to our GDP. - amounting roughly to the level of trade by Harrods pa.

So whilst our exports will be boosted negligible the boost to trade from Australia will increase by an enormous 83% almost entirely by their lamb and beef market.

If this importation is tariff free our farmers will be devastated, and particularly hill farmers like the farm we watch on “My Yorkshire Farm”
At worse it could wipe out the U.K. market except the top end and rare breeds.

Australian meat is reared fast and cheap by growth hormones and little animal welfare.

So our farmers will be devastated, our food will be vastly inferior all for the sake of an increase in exports to Australia amounting to 0.01% increase over 15 years.

Taken from Byline Times.

Umm, you were the ne that said we have to find ways to work round it. I thought I was agreeing with you?

It didn't read quite like that, Peasblossom

Glad that we agree, though.

Umm, you were the ne that said we have to find ways to work round it. I thought I was agreeing with you?

I do think the Earth would benefit if all its people mostly ate what could be produced there instead of shipping it around the globe. A lot of people in other countries go hungry because the west will pay more for their local produce.

But that’s another debate. And I’m off to lunch. (See, I’m just as bad. There’s stuffI won’t give up. Eating out)

?

Peasblossom

A number of studies put a sustainable human population at 3billion.

Who’s going to take the fall??

Well, our esteemed PM has been trying to reduce the UK population.. kill off the over 80s and get rid of as many EU nationals as we possibly can...

I don’t think the UK can be self sufficient at its current population so we have to find a way to “work around it”.

I hope you're not ascribing the totally ridiculous belief that the UK could be self sufficient (so often expressed in assertions that we should all 'buy British') to me, Peasblossom. I thought we were having a reasoned conversation...

A number of studies put a sustainable human population at 3billion.

Who’s going to take the fall??

I don’t think the UK can be self sufficient at its current population so we have to find a way to “work around it”.

We have become a ready meal/snack nation I’m afraid and our rising levels of obesity pay testament to that.

We can only become more self sufficient in food if eating habits change.

Any ideas?

That, about too many people in a small country, is what my Mum used to always say. What a wonderful place the UK would be with half the population! Same happens here, they ship more and more people into Melbourne and we have a worse and worse lifestyle with traffic jams, road rage etc. One thing about the bad handling of Covid, they are moving north away from here. Every cloud has a silver lining. If you didn’t have so many people you could live off your own produce. Another thing I find puzzling is how prime farmland is used for housing and is lost forever.

It’s a really complex conundrum of world population, economics, environment, what people like, want and expect, health, politics, ethics.

True. It needs addressing.

Oops 'sart' typo. I meant 'smart'

Peasblossom

Clothes, furniture, buildings, whatever. They all need water.

Like I said, too many people.

As we have to live with that (though as Malthus was saying the same thing 200yrs ago, when the UK population was less than 20million, I'm not sure that I buy it) we have to find sart ways to work round it.

What bothers me is placing more and more reliance on imported foodstuffs. I know that we haven't been self sufficient for 200yrs or more, but why diminish what we already have and rely on food chains which could easily be broken? All in the name of 'cheap' food. I'd suggest that we make food more expensive so that people think twice about wasting it, and that people have better wages (or benefits calculated on food needed to maintain a 'healthy' diet) in order to pay for it. (Which raises the question of 'Is it necessary that 1% of the world's population owns 50% of the world's wealth'?)

Well, it depends what you mean by productive. It generally grows a lot of what grows well in that climate.

Now we are used to eating what we want at any time, farming has had to change to being more intensive and using artificial methods to meet demand.

Natural animal farming will never be as productive as factory farming, unless you have the land.

It’s a really complex conundrum of world population, economics, environment, what people like, want and expect, health, politics, ethics.

I think some posters oversimplify.

Where a farm is balanced and works with the natural resources it has and its climate, then it mostly eliminates the need for extra water consumption other than what animals need. It also eliminates mostly the need for chemical fertilisers which a mainly crop based agricultural demands.

But is it as productive as farming by 'conventional' methods?

I'm entirely in sympathy with what you're saying here. Just curious.

Clothes, furniture, buildings, whatever. They all need water.

Like I said, too many people.

Admittedly I don’t really know much about Australian beef rearing. I did look up a report made to their parliament that bore out what vegansrock said.

But also the effect of crop production on Australia’s rivers and ours)

It’s not as simple as one thing or another.

A huge amount of water is required to produce clothes, particularly those made from natural fibres.

But overall, because of intensive factory farming, rearing animals for food, does use more water than crops. This is because of the water needed for slurry removal and other processes.

Most beef production in Australia is free range and only more intensive in the last stages.

Why would farmers who own thousands of acres of grassland and bush keep their animals in intensive farming conditions requiring food to be purchased when they own land?
It doesn't make sense.

But of course the real problem, that nobody wants to tackle, is too many people ?

I think you’re both right, in your own way.

Crops do take more produced water at source than animals. Witness my vegetable garden that over the last few days has needed two forty gallon water butts to keep it going as opposed to the hens who have needed four pints. The farmers have been pumping from the river on the seedling fields.

But overall, because of intensive factory farming, rearing animals for food, does use more water than crops. This is because of the water needed for slurry removal and other processes.

Where a farm is balanced and works with the natural resources it has and its climate, then it mostly eliminates the need for extra water consumption other than what animals need. It also eliminates mostly the need for chemical fertilisers which a mainly crop based agricultural demands.

Neither too much animal or too much crop is good for the environment in the long run.

Rain falls on farmland, animals eat the crops and grass grown, very little irrigation is used to provide food for animal production, but is used on a large scale for vegetable production. It is this large scale irrigation that causes rivers to dry up, reducing the amount for the environment and human use. In developed countries large quantities of water are used in processing food for hygiene purposes wether it is meat or vegetables. That process water is not particularly important because it returns to whatever drainage system and is recycled. In terms of water use animal waste is not important because it is returned to the land and used to grow the next crop.

Because animals rely mainly on rainfall there is very little impact, except for arid areas where rain is unreliable or seasonal, even in those areas crops are grown in the wet season and stored to be used later, the animals only needing drinking water. There are of course places where the human population exceeds the water resources of that area, climate changes are going to affect that, some areas will get less rain some more, populations will migrate.