http://www.earthscan.co.uk/?Tabid=74738

A new book.

I wondered if we could get old macdonald, kansas and flindt to do a review? Be interesting to see them tear this tome apart.

I don't know if FW goes in for book reviews. - I am aware that there is a certain antipathy to books in the world of farming in Britain, so probably not a fertile area to publish on.

I suspect the price tag will get the old boys coughing on their tea!

What I can do with £49.95! I wouldn't buy a book with that I could get ........????

It amazes me that publishers are still trying to charge this amount for books, when people can so easily find the ebook version for free...havent they caught on to what the internet is capable of??

motley:

What I can do with £49.95!

It would have to be good for £50! That's going to pretty much restrict its audience to businesses, academics and ag college libraries. JK Rowling probably isn't feeling too threatened!

Motley, I would happily read it, but I am not buying it. If I ever get around to publishing my own book, basically about how to use land, I would not expect to sell any at that sort of money.

So far as the posed question is concerned the short answer is "Food production". With the ever-increasing number of mouths to feed there are, and will continue to be, severe food shortages in many parts of the world. Greed and political ineptness would probably ensure this continued even given the impossibility that enough food was produced. Should this impossible state ever occur then surplus land could be used for other purposes, but not before. You would have to be older than me to have been a participant in "Dig for Victory" but maybe we should be heading along similar lines now. 

old mcdonald:

I would not expect to sell any at that sort of money

 I love books.

I must say that when I put this thread up I did not expect to elicit the replies that occurred. It has set me to thinking about how much should a book be priced at? I am in a place where I do not consider £50 a lot for a book. I am greatly surprise at Tim's thoughts as JK Rowling is the present equivalent to a popstar, and more so the Beatles or Elvis ( yes I know I don't know the present day equivalents). I have never read her books and would hope that she is indeed not worried about this type of thing, as she has inherited a world that has nothing what ever to do with what is land for? she is more interested in the value of copyright. Why is £50 so much for an article that will last a lifetime and can be handed down the generations? Folk are happy to pay £50,000 for a tractor that may last 20 years? pay £100 to go to a sporting event which is as ephemeral as a butterfly.

It is interesting when a price is put up how people respond. Would you pay £2 for a weekly magazine or a daily newspaper when you can get it for free on the wireless, TV, internet. The value of printed paper is it is almost eternal and can be referred back too. A book has a certain thud factor that people are intimidated by? Why? Like defra and rpa books they are for free on the net or printed. Most farmers I come across start at the beginning and read through. Why? Surely the advantage of a book is you can dip in anywhere. When I used an e-book and I was flipping around the chapters and pages I was blocked out as the computer thought I was trying to print it!

What price for knowledge? Yes it is for free on the net [I am now in response more so aimed at the mgee2 provocation] but it comes with a stonking caveat emptor. e books are available as pointed out, but someone has to produce them. Why should the great fonts of knowledge such as Kansas, allyR, Jacobus, Glasshouse and other contributors here not publish their thoughts in an e book. They will want money for it, how do they get it?

The problem with knowledge as extolled on FWi is exampled by the great Charles and the thread he supports. I can study the transfer of knowledge and I am left cold. The arguments are neither cogent or nor cohesive. The method then has to be a systematic look at the accumulated knowledge on the thread and see now this is what I get for free. When I reflect on this accumulated wisdom I cannot say; right this is what I have got on 'man made global warming'. What I have is information about various contributors position on the issue.

What I would pose to the reply about 'e is for free' is e for free sustainable? You want free down load films, music, books, games. What do people pay for over the net? (I don't know if it is too offensive for this particular website). It is to do with images of people inuldgent in carnal activity. This in itself says so much about the internet as a commercial activity.

Somewhere 'out-there' is someone who has a solution for turning digital knowledge into cash and it is in either of China or India. Most certainly not in Britain where this new generation of consumers has only the ability to receive not transmit. Consumption may appear to be oneway street. If you care to think about it though consuming necessarily factored, becomes a feedback. Therefore if people will not pay for knowledge they will not have knowledge. They will have Brown, Balls, Cameroon and Cowell.

 I thought that was Kevin Costners job?? ;)

henarar:

To stop us all drowning

I really like that thought and you echo ancient writers who considered that land was to seperate the water from the sky. Haydn did a grand job in setting that thought to music in The Creation.

However, How about Isabel serialising the book in FW? It appears to deal with a topic crucial to the future.

Motley, I never write anything I do not mean. In an argument my tongue can move faster than my brain, but please believe the following. Make sure you are seated comfortably.

I am extremely pleased to be able to say that I understand your post, and I wholeheartedly agree with what you say.

I do not buy any newspapers. I stopped when I happened to be in London when the "Cuba Crisis" occurred and was too busy to read one. When I returned home I realised I would have been extremely worried if I had bought one in the previous few days. Neither do I buy any magazines, nor pay for anything on the Internet. Somebody once told me I should have been born in Aberdeen. A number of my near ancestors were.

I have downloaded a few old books (all agricultural ones) via a very good site in Tasmania, and paid a contribution to help the person responsible to keep the site operating, but they will never be a replacement for "the real thing" and if I find a copy of any of these books I will buy it.

So far as price is concerned, it is one of those difficult decisions. Too low and you need to sell a lot to recover costs (people also think it cannot be a good article) and too high and many will not purchase because they have a preference to spend on something else, although you need to sell far fewer to recoup costs and begin making a profit - and a profit is essential otherwise there is no purpose in producing the article. Unless you are farming of course in which case you carry on producing anyway. My wife and I are currently faced with this pricing dilemma for a new business venture.

I find myself in shock here as I am in agreement with Motley! I love books and would rather have a printed version than any e-book. For example, my mum bought me the 100 Classic Books thing for my Nintendo DS last year, I have hardly touched it as I find it spoils the experience of curling up and actually turning the pages. However, I would not pay £50 for a book (I knew I wouldn't agree with M totally!), especially if I hadn't read it from cover to cover. I would prefer to read the majority of it (or at least the first few chapters) on the computer screen for a minimal donation, then wait until it became available second-hand for under £10. I'm sorry but I can live on £50 for a week, including cider! It does seem this book is aimed at a pretty specific part of the population which is a shame as it could be a very interesting book, it seems we will never find out.

And on the subject of 'what is land for?' I am grateful it keeps me from falling into all that boiling magma.

 Well Motley, now that I know how much you admire this "great font of knowledge", in the unlikely event I would write a book, you will receive an autographed copy free of charge.  Thought you would want to know that.  Perhaps the other fonts you mentioned would do the same. 

 Ally by the way is becoming quite famous in my neck of the woods, not for being a font of knowledge, but for his skill on the bagpipes, a must see for everyone who views any of my UK footage.  I am still waiting on a decision from Mrs. KF if she will allow me to purchase a set and try to learn to play them, while living in the same house with her.

katndog2:

I can live on £50 for a week, including cider!

How do you manage this? I fear you may not understand my ramblings, lets try...?

This figure suggests Victorian levels of rent and tax, let alone food prices. I suppose you grow all your own, and don't eat meat. As to obtain even your own meat you will need transport, license, slaughter costs and storage. No? maybe you shoot your own. Hmmm...I could surmise for a while, I wonder please tell us how you live on £50 per week.

You obviously don't have a car, which is admirable. You must have a computer and I am guessing some arrangement to connect to the net. My telephone broadband is £15 per month which is £3.46 per week. This leaves you a bit less? How to cover the costs of electricity which again is an expense? or do you generate your own? Is it a clockwork powered computer?

I had often wondered about living in Mid Wales but when ever I sit down and do the costs on housing alone it ain't so very cheap. I would have to have transport which presently costs me for fuel, insurance, maintenance and capital allowance near as £2,500 per year for statement here. Yes I know I don't have a heavy mileage at about 10,000 per year. I suspect in Mid Wales that I would do more than that.

 I calculate each year, about this time, my fixed costs of housing (no mortgage), fuel, car, phone, food, repairs. It is near as possible to state £10,000 per year at the moment. To achieve this I need a gross income of roughly £15,000 to pay tax and stamp. I am therefore in the competitive capitalist world of ours having to live on £288 per week which is 6 times you, and consequently so much less competitive. I think that you are therefore much nearer the third world, which is so many more people on the planet with their £1/day income than me. Or is it? It still costs you 10 times more a week to live than them. Give up the cider mate, this is the century of China, not large banker bonuses.

I therefore resolve to live more like you than I am at present. Oh please, please tell us how you do it.

I suspect also there a several million others 'out there' who would like also to know how it is possible to live on £50 per week. Recently an old couple has died in Northampton who probably did not know how to achieve this.

 After the seeing an ad in a local machinery magazine for four books priced at over £1000 for the set. That seems cheap

Admittedly they were 1st edition from the 1700s

Insanity!!! You could buy a perfectly good car for that!

Motley, I suspect your ideas of living and mine are completely different, and that you wish me to open my personal finances to you in order that you can shoot me down and expose my lack of interest in learning and moving forwards. I am not willing to do this, call me a coward if you will, but my mother always told me it was wrong to discuss money in public. I am prepared to tell you that I own 2 private vehicles, both of which run on petrol, I do not generate my own electricity, and I am a commited carnivore with the occasional side dish of vegetables! I do also own a stout pair of walking boots and work part-time in a pub, which may partly explain my lack of spending, as you perceive it.

It is a shame that mainly the price of the book seems to have got everyone talking! I don't know about everyone else but the book title made me prick my ears up and take a look, and I suppose that the title can be viewed in as many ways as you want. I am sure most would argue that the primary purpose for land is for farming and producing food, but we all know there are those who disagree. The government have finally warmed to the idea that domestic food production is worthwhile and not before time, but there are also plenty of other considerations tied in with that now and that is what the book looks at. What you do with land, where and how you do it are all discussed to provide some discussion on the future of food and energy production from land, and how this can be done with minimal effect. There is a massive dollop of arguments to add to the climate change debate as well (and there is no shortage of to-ing and fro-ing on that one!) The section on the uplands got me scratching my head, and some of the research looks at the different pressure on these areas which will surely only increase (and it's alright having upland 'visions' for decades from now on, but what about what is happening right now?) There are plenty of other topics out of the research in the book which directly affect farmers, and of course this type of stuff has the ear of policymakers too. Looking at the future for policy, it is clear that there will be less money to play with. 50 quid made me wince a bit, but it could be well spent to keep up to speed! Here is the first chapter on the relu website though and it is entirely free. Take a look here http://www.relu.ac.uk/links/What_Is_Land_For_Ch1.pdf

adam bedford:

I am sure most would argue that the primary purpose for land is for farming and producing food

Top man Adam on the frustration that folk latch onto the price of a book, this is symptomatic of farmers view on the value of knowledge and books generally. There are a group of farmers who do realize that from Tusser onwards it has been possible to glean information of how to improve land management from books, and still is.

Now to the point of coming back to your points.

To those who are excited by the use of land for agriculture, yes they would agree with your statement. This is only perhaps one person in 100 in England, maybe less.

After the War in 1947 farmers were given the moral authority, codified by society to use land to produce food. Regrettably this gift, like so many gifts was abused, in this case by the arrogance of farming in society. This authority was withdrawn by thatcher in the mid 1980s. No longer is land about production. Land is about leisure, countryside, resources (soil, water, air), environment. From these 'multi-functional' attributes of land we produce food. This challenge is being played out across the planet in California, Iowa, Ontario and all across Europe. There is no given 'right' that land is for food production. Land can be built on, produce coal, oil, harvest water, produce grass, timber and more.

What is this about the countryside is our workshop? The factories act legislated against poor working practices, so if farming's workshop is the countryside then in society there will be legislation against poor working practice on farms?

I wonder if the fact that farming is a masculine dominated activity and the needs of land are multifunctional has anything to do with it. It is after all the female claim that it is the female of the species that multi-tasks.

 I have just taken Adam Bedfords advice and read the first chapter of the book"What is land for" and must admit that as a farmer I had a biased viewpoint against academics and their point of view. However I have to admit that it has whetted my reading appitite and will have to find a copy now.

As with all farmers one of the most interesting occupations as you are driving is to look over the fence and see what other farmers are doing, much to the concern of my wife and family who think I should keep my eyes on the road.But it is easy to be critical of others,and wonder why they are not making better use of the land that they are farming.

This brings up the basic right of the individual to do as he wishes with the patch that he owns,leases or rents.As with all business as long as the proprieter is paying his way and he is happy with his lot no one worries.

However when it comes to the land it seems that every man and his dog seems think that they have a right to dictate the rules and how they should be managed.

As A land owner and renter of land,we have real pride in the way we farm our land and would like to think we will leave it in a better condition for future farmers. We are fortunate to have a longer term lease (10 yr) on our rented land which makes for more longer term planning. However 1-2 yr leases or renting leads to taking and not putting back.But it all comes back to the attitude of the land owner if they are out for the best rent year in year out then the welfare of the land will be secondary.

The next area of concern would be beuraucrats dictating land use,I could have been in a lot better position financially if my farm had of been a dairy farm, but I dont like milking cows, so I know I would not have made a good job of it.

I quess what I am saying it is all very well having ideals as to how the land should be put to its best use,but unless you have the co-operation of the man on the land then all is lost.

However money talks and anything is possible if it is profitable enough to bring about change, But that has the hint of subsidies about it and that is a dirty word in NZ. 

First let us imagine the time before mankind came upon the earth. At that stage land was 'not for anything.' It was just firmament dividing the sky from the waters. Then along came man.

At that point Man decided that land, and everything else, was for his use.

However very very early on Man also decided that he was a steward of the land and this concept is still expressed by thoughts such as this:

alidownunder:

As A land owner and renter of land,we have real pride in the way we farm our land and would like to think we will leave it in a better condition for future farmers.

We move on a few years in the development of Man to the point where a political class have emerged. This class now consider that land is for use AND that Man is for use. At this point land and labour can be bought and sold and slavery was born.

This utilitarian concept of everything as a resource to be used, permeates our thinking to this day. It is expressed in the following.

alidownunder:

The next area of concern would be bureaucrats dictating land use

I will not develop this comment further because my thinking will well and truly take us 'off topic.'  However, I will say that it is my experience, that the concept of Stewardship rather than Utilitarianism is more often found amongst those people whose psychological profile shows them to be more individualistic than socialistic.

alidownunder:

This brings up the basic right of the individual to do as he wishes with the patch that he owns,leases or rents.As with all business as long as the proprieter is paying his way and he is happy with his lot no one worries.

However when it comes to the land it seems that every man and his dog seems think that they have a right to dictate the rules and how they should be managed.

Land is a common resource. In places where private ownership is an accepted method of distrabution. There are still laws imposed by society and this has been so for thousands of years.

Every man and his dog does have aright to dictate how land is managed because over the generations, as you have pointed out some have sought to mine the land for simplistic monetary return.

Now we are faced with even bigger problems in managing the land resource.

There are for example 8 million (this number of 8 million is nearly twice the population on NZ) people living on about 25,000ha in London (in NZ the people live on 25m/ha). Many farmers operate from a stand point that they would farm this land better, who is to say? These people need water (clean water, I have a ancestor who sussed that you need clean water to combate Cholera in 1854). Not only water but also other things to live food.

Now these people do make demands on the land. When they drive round and see 'over the fence' they too wonder why pesticides, nitrates, soil and more leak into the water and why farming is not done 'better'.

motley:

Every man and his dog does have aright to dictate how land is managed

I sometimes wonder if you make statements such as this to be deliberately provocative or because you believe in the statement.

To be pedantic, a 'right' for 'everyone' to 'dictate' is anarchic in that you are saying that each person is justified in doing whatever they want.

I have the right to concrete over your garden. Jacobus has the right to tarmac it. Allyr has the right to fill it with wheat. KF has the right to stock it with beef cattle. You have the right to give it to Gordon Brown for secret trysts with Harriet Harman.

Whose right has priority and who is to decide?

Peter Wells:

I sometimes wonder if you make statements such as this to be deliberately provocative or because you believe in the statement.

I accept that this type of statement is provocative, especially on a site like FWi. Yes I do fundamentally believe that society does have common rights.

For example I find it difficult to bail out bankers at RBS, and to now see them receive bonuses that apparently their talent requires.

When it comes down to land; the land today we know offers more, much more than agricultural production alone. We know also that the husbandry tools developed in the past century come like a Faustian pact. There is a sting. This was not so well understood in 1934.

yes you could do all these things to 'my' land. One day that will be neither my worry or care. I must say I would like to see your business plan with concrete, tarmac, cattle and wheat. It does light a certain image. - 'Wells, Jacobus,allyR and KF' perhaps a new hedgefund?

Rest assured the thought that is a worry to me is crash having a tryst with hector harry,........... and, well after major and currie I suppose anything is possible.

At least we know now that brown watch is 6 may 2010. Therefore brown watch is 106 days. Something to look forward to. I am, however severely limited in my exuberance, as I know I am wishing for something worse. It will however be different and after all this time that in itself will be enough.

motley:

society does have common rights.

and exercises them too by allowing laws and regulations that permit myriads of activities to take place on, above and under land that sometimes don't make sense at all if all you see land as, simply a food production resource.

 Motley, your thought process is unnecessarily complicated.  Society both in the UK and USA has demanded cheap food. As farmers, if we want to continue to farm, we must constantly find ways to produce more from the same acre, or go by the wayside.  It is societies demand for cheap food that leads to all the "awful" fertilizer, herbicide, antibiotics, insecticide, and fungicide.

IF society would allow me a living wage farming 80 acres with 4 horses, milking 2 cows and farrowing 4 sows, I would gladly pull the old horse drawn stuff out of the hedge row, don a wide brimmed straw hat and follow a team through the fields, chewing on a straw, perhaps even barefooted, foresaking all modern inputs.  

Society already DOES DICTATE what is done with the land.