Horses?
- Thread starter nilling
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
very-near said:
i tell you what i DO object to - a whole herd of cows or sheep taking up the whole road. And the farmer standing behind waving his arm at them as if it's going to make them go any faster!
If they're going from one field to another, they should go across fields!
There should be absolutely no need whatsoever for cows and/or sheep to be taken anywhere via road.
Why can't they milk them where they are?
very-near said:
They're dangerous, and arrogant. No mountain bikers like horses, becuase horses think they own the countryside, simply because they have largely had the run of it for years, but now they don't. They can't blame people for realising what shoots horses actually are and forming alternative hobbies. An example of why they are dangerous twats: The only safe place to be relative to a horse is away from it. In front of it - it can bite. Behind it - it can kick you. To death, if it so desires. At the side of it, it can buck its arse and knock you over, probably also to death. On it - and it can throw you off. They're temperamental, wild animals and to expect them to have road sense is to me ludicrous.
bonj said:i tell you what i DO object to - a whole herd of cows or sheep taking up the whole road. And the farmer standing behind waving his arm at them as if it's going to make them go any faster!
If they're going from one field to another, they should go across fields!
There should be absolutely no need whatsoever for cows and/or sheep to be taken anywhere via road.
Why can't they milk them where they are?
And what happens if there is a road between the two fields? It is necessary to cross it.
tyred said:
Well why is it necessary for them to get from that field to the field across the road? They need to think outside the box. That's the problem with farmers, they don't think. Then again, they're not paid to. They're paid to pretend to do work , but in fact achieve precisely bugger all - to transport a load of livestock from one field to another and then back again completely pointlessly is one of the ways of looking busy i suppose, which I presume is why they do it.
Doesn't mean we have to like it though!
bonj said:i tell you what i DO object to - a whole herd of cows or sheep taking up the whole road. And the farmer standing behind waving his arm at them as if it's going to make them go any faster!
If they're going from one field to another, they should go across fields!
There should be absolutely no need whatsoever for cows and/or sheep to be taken anywhere via road.
Why can't they milk them where they are?
Steady on Bonj, this is Linf you are talking to.
A herd of 20 cows can graze a 6 acre field down in a week. If they were kept in there any longer, they would starve or have to be given Silage or Hay.
The farmers rotate their grazing from field to field, but there is no guarantee that the farmer owns interconnected fields.
In the winter, most cows will be brought off the fields and kept on the farmyard to protect the fields when they soften up in the wet weather.
bonj said:
When the cows have eaten all the grass in one field, it is necessary to move them to another field with fresh grass. Otherwise they starve and you wouldn't be able to have roast beef for your sunday dinner as there would be no beef as all the cattle have starved to death
Arch
Married to Night Train
- Location
- Salford, UK
I'm just waiting for bonj to explain the difference between a horse and pony... (Without looking it up, of course....)
(Without looking it up, of course....)
Cubist
Still wavin'
- Location
- Ovver 'thill
been off the forum for a while and just read through this. Thanks guys, pure comedy. Keep it up! Bonj, you rival Meldrew for sheer apparent irational ire and ranting
Thanks, cheered me right up.
Thanks, cheered me right up.very-near said:
Why can't they have 20 cows per 6 x n acres, where n is the number of weeks it takes for the grass to grow back. And make those n 6 acre fields adjacent to each other - so say if there is only 12 acres bordered by road, and it takes a week for the grass to grow back, then they can only have 20 cows in that space of land, and they have to move from one half (6 acres) to the other half separated by a fence, on a weekly basis. Those 20 cows can never leave that 12 acres, they just move from one half of it to the other. THEY CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN THAT AMOUNT OF COWS!
If that leaves a surplus of cows in the whole country, then they will have to be EITHER culled, OR shipped off to france (probably the best solution), OR alternatively just set free in some woods in scotland maybe to become wild, like they probably once were anyway.
The only time they should be transported by road is when it's time for them to be shot, when a lorry should park up in the field and they should be herded in, and taken to the NEAREST abbatoir, not one that is the other end of the country but that is politically convenient because the farmer has a good relationship with the owner.
very-near said:
It DOESN'T MATTER!!
THat's purely political convenience. Political convenience doesn't go hand in hand with an efficient farming system. If farmers can't cooperate with each other then the government should bang their bloody heads together. Like i've said before, they should be nationalised - which they effectively are anyway seeing as they are mainly paid out of subsidies to pretend to farm rather than actually produce a decent amount of food.tyred said:When the cows have eaten all the grass in one field, it is necessary to move them to another field with fresh grass. Otherwise they starve and you wouldn't be able to have roast beef for your sunday dinner as there would be no beef as all the cattle have starved to death
Well, you would actually - because most of our beef is shipped in from new zealand or france, but hey.