Elumbated – weak or lame in the loins.
Allied Press business and rural editor Sally Rae has won the Rural Women New Zealand journalism award..
The award was established to recognise the important contribution women make in rural communities.
Entries in this year’s award had to include two articles broadly based on the theme of ‘‘rural women making a difference’’. . .
The needs for animal protein in discussions on future nutritious and sustainable food systems seems to be missing from much of the rhetoric, says Jeremy Hill, Fonterra’s chief scientist and technology officer.
That includes the EAT-Lancet report, says Hill, who spoke at the Climate Change and Business Conference in Auckland last week.
Hill said he was speaking in his role as a professor of sustainable food systems at the Reddit Institute. . ..
They’re committed to their land – Kate Taylor:
A Central Hawke’s Bay family farm is combining bulls and Wagyu steers to make the most of its climate and the most of its family asset. They not only know what they are doing on-farm but also know the supply chain from end to end so can tick all the boxes expected of them. Kate Taylor reports.
Growing quality cattle on an all grass and homegrown fodder system is all that’s needed to keep James Greer happy in his work.
“Farming is in our blood. Every day is different and every day is a challenge. We love it.”
James and Katherine Greer and James’ parents Jerry and Diana farm 830ha at Argyll east, west of Waipawa. . .
China trade warning – Neal Wallace:
A dollar out every $3 earned from primary products exports comes from China, a scenario that concerns Otago University marketing expert Dr Robert Hamlin.
Treasury has also warned about over-reliance on China, particularly for dairy.
Hamlin says as a rule of thumb no more than 20% of revenue should be earned from one source to ensure a buffer against changes in terms of trade. . .
More stock, less work – Yvonne O’Hara:
Since changing their farming practice to growing all grass year round for full-time dairy grazing, running more than 1000 head of stock was a “doddle”, farm manager Stuart Browning said.
He and wife Kim work for Brian and Glennis Webster, of the Coromandel Peninsula, who bought the 370ha (300ha effective) “Waikite” property next to Waituna Lagoon 11 years ago.
Since the Websters and Mr Browning changed the farming system, they have gone from about 600 stock on crop and grass, to grass only and running nearly twice that number while reducing their workload and making significant feed savings. . . .
One of Wales’ biggest abattoirs is to stop processing beef due to ‘falling volumes, negative margins and spiralling costs of production’.
Randall Parker Foods’ (RPF) abattoir in Llanidloes, Powys is one of Wales’ only beef processors.
It has now made the decision to end beef processing at the plant in what has been described as a ‘another blow’ for the sector. . .
A friend was visiting her sister in Australia and wanted to go to a movie.
The last one she’d been to had been full of bad language and she wanted a cleaner one. Her sister said Four Weddings and a Funeral was reputed to be very good and very funny.
They went and the first several words were the F one.
Was it offensive? To some probably, but in the context it was both appropriate and funny.
Is it always?
We went to a stand up comedy evening recently and almost every sentence had at least one F word, often more.
IWere the comedians funny? Yes. In the context were all the Fs both appropriate and funny? No. Most of the time they were used as a filler instead of um and ah or a pause.
Does this clip need all the Fs?
It’s funny, but would it have lost any of the humour with fewer, or even no Fs?
I think so.
That word has become so commonplace a lot of people don’t even realise they’re using it and if they use it that often, what’s left when they really need an expletive?
The Zero Carbon Bill has returned from the Select Committee without science-based changes:
Controversial biological methane targets in the Government’s much-touted Zero Carbon Bill remain unchanged, despite strong lobbying from both environmentalists and farmers.
After months of scrutiny from MPs from both sides of the political aisle, the environmental select committee today released its much-anticipated report on the Zero Carbon Bill.
It shows the legislation’s original commitment to reducing biological methane – greenhouse emission from cows and sheep – by between 24-47 per cent below 2017 levels by 2050, remains in place.
This is despite intense lobbying for the targets to be fixed, not at a range, at either 24 or 47 per cent. . .
National is not happy. Its environmental spokesman Scott Simpson said not nearly enough of the bill had changed. . . .
Simpson said the 24-47 range not changing created uncertainty for industry players.
“It is too high given the current level of technology available to farmers to make meaningful reductions to biological methane.”
He said currently, the only way farmers can reduce this type of biological methane is by reducing their stock count. . .
Reducing stock numbers would come a high financial and social cost for at best no environmental gain and at worse a loss as our less efficient competitors increase production to fill the gap.
It also goes against the Paris Accord which stipulates climate change mitigation shouldn’t come at the expense of food production.
The Government unveiled the Zero Carbon Bill in May this year with much fanfare; Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said it was a “landmark” piece of legislation.
“New Zealanders have demanded it – and today we delivered it.”
Do those who have demanded it understand the consequences and the cost of undermining food security in this way?
Do they understand they are demanding significant cuts in export income with all the hardship that will follow that?
Do they understand they are demanding steep increases in the price of food?
All the government is delivering is a flawed Bill that will take us on a pathway to misery.