tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post2154559914351200893..comments2024-01-05T05:02:20.353+00:00Comments on CRYPTOZOOLOGY ONLINE: Still on the Track: COLUMNIST TIM MATTHEWS: Round And Round In CirclesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post-80808091869200211832009-02-09T16:23:00.001+00:002009-02-09T16:23:00.001+00:00Hello. Some interesting comments and certainly foo...Hello. Some interesting comments and certainly food for thought but onyl some farmers feel this way, if at all. Many have benefitted from the crop circles phenomenon and if I told you that farmers had paid circlemakers to put formations in their fields I would be telling the truth. So there are many sides to this subject. I suppose, also, that one has to keep it in perspective. There were probably 50 formations last year in England and that's a tiny number in comparison with the numbers of fields. Circles are better constructed but less populous these days so it is to be hoped that any claims of damage relate to a minimal problem if we accept your take on events. I have spoken to farmers who are not at all unhappy about the formations but, as ever, opinions vary. <BR/><BR/>Hopefully, this reply makes some sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post-73080456465471182542009-02-09T16:23:00.000+00:002009-02-09T16:23:00.000+00:00Hello. Some interesting comments and certainly foo...Hello. Some interesting comments and certainly food for thought but onyl some farmers feel this way, if at all. Many have benefitted from the crop circles phenomenon and if I told you that farmers had paid circlemakers to put formations in their fields I would be telling the truth. So there are many sides to this subject. I suppose, also, that one has to keep it in perspective. There were probably 50 formations last year in England and that's a tiny number in comparison with the numbers of fields. Circles are better constructed but less populous these days so it is to be hoped that any claims of damage relate to a minimal problem if we accept your take on events. I have spoken to farmers who are not at all unhappy about the formations but, as ever, opinions vary. <BR/><BR/>Hopefully, this reply makes some sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post-22895451789786157082009-02-08T23:02:00.000+00:002009-02-08T23:02:00.000+00:00Actually, Tim, you're not quite right about the "d...Actually, Tim, you're not quite right about the "does no harm" to farmers bit. Granted a farmer can lower the combine table height and get lodged crops in, but have you ever wondered why farmers cut stubble to about 4" to 6" height?<BR/><BR/>The answer is that the cutting mechanism on a combine is a long, wide sickle-bar oscillating cutter made out of hard and rather brittle tool steel. It has to be hard to retain an edge (resharpening sickle bar teeth is a long, slow horrible job) but this means that if the bar hits a nice hard stone like a flint, it can break off a tooth or even break the entire bar. Running at about 6" high means the combine spills very little grain and runs no risk of hitting stones and breaking its self.<BR/><BR/>Replacing a broken bar takes time, and costs money in parts and labour. During harvest, a farmer is aiming to get the crop in when the moisture content is at or around 10%; any higher and the crop won't store and he'll have to dry it out. Drying grain means burning diesel, and red diesel costs about 50 to 60 pence per litre. If he has to fix a blade, he may miss a window in the weather and harvest wet grain, or even (like last harvest) be forced to sit and wait and watch grain sprouting on the ear because he can't get onto the land because its too wet to drive about with several tonnes of combine harvester.<BR/><BR/>So, by deliberately flattening crops, you're giving a farmer a real bugger of a decision to make: should he try to lower the table and harvest it, and contaminate his grain with damper grain that will need drying, and also run the risk of putting his combine out of action for a day or so (a day or so when he'll have to pay for mechanics and spare parts to fix the problem), or does he swallow the loss and run over the flattened grain?<BR/><BR/>Basically, by flattening areas of a field you're costing the farmer money, and since you're not offering to compensate him for this loss, you're effectively stealing part of his livelihood; if he misses most of his harvest you could even put the man out of business entirely since insurance is getting dearer and dearer these days.<BR/><BR/>And to think, you wonder why crop circle makers are viewed as scum by the farming community...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com