Realistic alternatives to suckler farming

Markcheese

Farmer wrote: »

A more realistic alternative is probably

Draw the subs with minimum stocking rate and a topper. Live a life in-between

Not the way we want to farm but it looks better than suckling

I think that environmental schemes should make this more attractive, maybe not minimum stocking, but species rich pastures, lower inputs, more" nature reserves "
Not just a payment for owning land though but for working land , if lads want to push it to the max, that's fine but not for everyone,

80sDiesel

Markcheese wrote: »

Farmer wrote: »

A more realistic alternative is probably

Draw the subs with minimum stocking rate and a topper. Live a life in-between

Not the way we want to farm but it looks better than suckling

I think that environmental schemes should make this more attractive, maybe not minimum stocking, but species rich pastures, lower inputs, more" nature reserves "
Not just a payment for owning land though but for working land , if lads want to push it to the max, that's fine but not for everyone,

Yes i can see this been the future. I do it for nothing myself on a hobby farm ( missed Glas ) but would take off some land that is leased in the future to do more of it if i was compensated roughly what i lease it without any work involved.

Muckit

The sustainability of the entire beef sector is questionable. It's hard to see how the future can be anything but bleak. And no I'm not a pessimist, more a realist.

The costs are increasing year on year. Plastic gets dearer, fertiliser, meal etc. Nothing major, but a euro here and a euro there all the same. The sfp has been doing likewise. Yet beef price @factory gate is never increased in line with inflation. Ultimately if u stand still you are going backwards. It appears that intensification and expansion is the only answer but l believe the exact opposite needs to happen.

The standard of living has increased. Everyone has more personal financial responsibilities outside of farming than the generation that has gine before us.

By the time I'm ready for the wooden overcoat there will be big changes in irish farming. And indeed rural Ireland as a direct consequence.

Base price

Muckit wrote: »

The sustainability of the entire beef sector is questionable. It's hard to see how the future can be anything but bleak. And no I'm not a pessimist, more a realist.

The costs are increasing year on year. Plastic gets dearer, fertiliser, meal etc. Nothing major, but a euro here and a euro there all the same. The sfp has been doing likewise. Yet beef price @factory gate is never increased in line with inflation. Ultimately if u stand still you are going backwards. It appears that intensification and expansion is the only answer but l believe the exact opposite needs to happen.

The standard of living has increased. Everyone has more personal financial responsibilities outside of farming than the generation that has gine before us.

By the time I'm ready for the wooden overcoat there will be big changes in irish farming. And indeed rural Ireland as a direct consequence.

Overheard an article on the radio earlier about climate change and rising temperatures. One of the comments was we have to reduce our consumption of beef.

I says

Base price wrote: »

Overheard an article on the radio earlier about climate change and rising temperatures. One of the comments was we have to reduce our consumption of beef.

More dog****e regarding climate it has and always changed how.C4 made a documentary about it years ago it was called the great swindle or something really opened my eyes to the bs scientists preach to get their funding.

patsy_mccabe

It's like the programme on RTE a while back about Bord Na Mona being responsible for 5% of emissions in Ireland. No mention of the causes for the other 95%.

Tar.Aldarion

Base price wrote: »

Overheard an article on the radio earlier about climate change and rising temperatures. One of the comments was we have to reduce our consumption of beef.

That would likely be because of this UN report all over the news today:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45775309

It's the final call, say scientists, the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures.

Their dramatic report on keeping that rise under 1.5 degrees C says the world is now completely off track, heading instead towards 3C.

Keeping to the preferred target of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels will mean "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".

It will be hugely expensive - but the window of opportunity remains open.

After three years of research and a week of haggling between scientists and government officials at a meeting in South Korea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a special report on the impact of global warming of 1.5C.

What could be wiped out by temperature rise
What is climate change?
The critical 33-page Summary for Policymakers certainly bears the hallmarks of difficult negotiations between climate researchers determined to stick to what their studies have shown and political representatives more concerned with economies and living standards.

Despite the inevitable compromises, there are some key messages that come through loud and clear.

"The first is that limiting warming to 1.5C brings a lot of benefits compared with limiting it to two degrees. It really reduces the impacts of climate change in very important ways," said Prof Jim Skea, who co-chairs the IPCC.

"The second is the unprecedented nature of the changes that are required if we are to limit warming to 1.5C - changes to energy systems, changes to the way we manage land, changes to the way we move around with transportation."

What's the one big takeaway?
"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW, IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, of Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have."

The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below two degrees this century, then the changes we would experience would be manageable.

Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years, in 2030.

We can stay below it - but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals and we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, about 2.5% of global gross domestic product (GDP), the value of all goods and services produced, for two decades.

Even then, we will still need machines, trees and plants to capture carbon from the air that we can then store deep underground - forever.

What can I do?
The report says there must be rapid and significant changes in four big global systems:

energy • land use • cities • industry
But it adds that the world cannot meet its target without changes by individuals, urging people to:

buy less meat, milk, cheese and butter and more locally sourced seasonal food - and throw less of it away • drive electric cars but walk or cycle short distances • take trains and buses instead of planes • use videoconferencing instead of business travel • use a washing line instead of a tumble dryer • insulate homes • demand low carbon in every consumer product
Lifestyle changes can make a big difference, said Dr Debra Roberts, the IPCC's other co-chair.

"That's a very empowering message for the individual," she said. "This is not about remote science; it is about where we live and work, and it gives us a cue on how we might be able to contribute to that massive change, because everyone is going to have to be involved."

"You might say you don't have control over land use, but you do have control over what you eat and that determines land use.

"We can choose the way we move in cities and if we don't have access to public transport - make sure you are electing politicians who provide options around public transport."

Link to actual report
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

Farmer

Mary Robinson was on this morning, made my blood boil, nearly all about farming except for her hybrid car. No mention of all the unnecessary air travel, food miles, corporate white vans and couriers doing duplicate journeys, one occupant cars, and a hundred other things

Thankfully, ICMSA man, Pat McCormack put it to bed

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/former-irish-presidents-remarks-blasted-for-sheer-disconnect/

CHOPS01

Last Saturday as i stood in what was the dairy (father depopulated in mid 90s BSE) came to my mind could a man make a living from 30/35cows?? Calves would have to go at 5/6 weeks to try maximise use of available ground.

Muckit

CHOPS01 wrote: »

Last Saturday as i stood in what was the dairy (father depopulated in mid 90s BSE) came to my mind could a man make a living from 30/35cows?? Calves would have to go at 5/6 weeks to try maximise use of available ground.

There's a lad at it near here. Has the finest yard and machinery in the parish. Even has a lad in to do evening milkings. But he has prob v little overheads. Kids reared and mortgage paid off.

visatorro

Muckit wrote:

There's a lad at it near here. Has the finest yard and machinery in the parish. Even has a lad in to do evening milkings. But he has prob v little overheads. Kids reared and mortgage paid off.

You could step in when he retires!

yosemitesam1

Base price wrote: »

Overheard an article on the radio earlier about climate change and rising temperatures. One of the comments was we have to reduce our consumption of beef.

The big issue around climate change science is there's too many people stepping outside their area of expertise. Afaik the head researcher in teagasc is a botanist originally.

The actual metrics used in comparison is another big issue. Meat can compare very favourably if not better to veg depending on how they're compared. Also the issue that cattle methane isn't the big issue it's made out to be. Carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are far more important

_Brian

Base price wrote: »

Overheard an article on the radio earlier about climate change and rising temperatures. One of the comments was we have to reduce our consumption of beef.

https://news.sky.com/story/just-11-years-to-contain-global-warming-report-11521038


Seems to be more and more pressure being applied to public opinion, it will be very easy to turn more and more of the public against farming as a major source of global warming..

Bullocks

Muckit wrote: »

There's a lad at it near here. Has the finest yard and machinery in the parish. Even has a lad in to do evening milkings. But he has prob v little overheads. Kids reared and mortgage paid off.

Sure if the kids were reared , no mortgage and no overheads the dole would nearly keep a lad going

Say my name

_Brian wrote: »

https://news.sky.com/story/just-11-years-to-contain-global-warming-report-11521038


Seems to be more and more pressure being applied to public opinion, it will be very easy to turn more and more of the public against farming as a major source of global warming..

That's why I started the Biochar thread in the hope to educate a few people on this one of two actions that can actually take carbon from the air and put in the ground.
The other one being multi species winter cover cropping.
Biochar has the edge in that it's a bit more permanent.
The carbon taken in by the multi species cover crop can be wasted over years with bad management. Biochar can not.

Biochar added to animal feed also reduces methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Backed up by science.

If you read that bit posted by Tar.Aldarian above mentions it.

"Even then, we still need machines, trees and plants to capture carbon from the air that we can store deep underground forever."

The future is positive for farmers in the EU lads. They can't reduce the carbon in the atmosphere without us. We have them over a barrel.
We just need to ensure that any carbon taxes imposed on carbon products goes to funding that carbon removal and into the pockets of farmers.

Say my name

For anyone that gets confused by what Carbon is..
(Because they do get confused).

This is carbon.
https://goo.gl/images/KAU8X6

And this is carbon being burnt going into the atmosphere.
https://www.google.ie/search?q=tractor+pulling&client=ms-android-samsung&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYuqXU2ffdAhVFKsAKHeM_DlIQ_AUICigB&biw=320&bih=454#

And this is what a carbon rich soil looks like..
https://www.google.ie/search?q=carbon+rich+soil&client=ms-android-samsung&prmd=isnv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT-8T02vfdAhUKLMAKHV0UCqoQ_AUICigB&biw=320&bih=454#imgrc=gpMU-8uiP6ljYM:

Muckit

visatorro wrote: »

You could step in when he retires!

I don't know if ld want to to be honest! I doubt he'd do a straight swop. III stick to my own madness - paying off a mortgage til I'm touching 70 and messing at cattle for peanuts!

Birdnuts

Farmer wrote: »

Mary Robinson was on this morning, made my blood boil, nearly all about farming except for her hybrid car. No mention of all the unnecessary air travel, food miles, corporate white vans and couriers doing duplicate journeys, one occupant cars, and a hundred other things

Thankfully, ICMSA man, Pat McCormack put it to bed

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/former-irish-presidents-remarks-blasted-for-sheer-disconnect/

I'm sure Mary is very concerned about the planet as she flies first class from 5 star hotel to 5 star hotel:pac:;)

Dickie10

were getting back to different situations for different people lifestyles a bit like i was on about in 1970s lifestyle. theres a lad beside me who has a great life two or three holidays a year, takes a few sundays off milking getting a man in etc. he has very little overheads, wife has a very high paying job (phd in computers) he has no children and he milks 40 cows on about 60 acres. so depends on your needs i suppose

kk.man

Birdnuts wrote: »

Farmer wrote: »

Mary Robinson was on this morning, made my blood boil, nearly all about farming except for her hybrid car. No mention of all the unnecessary air travel, food miles, corporate white vans and couriers doing duplicate journeys, one occupant cars, and a hundred other things

Thankfully, ICMSA man, Pat McCormack put it to bed

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/former-irish-presidents-remarks-blasted-for-sheer-disconnect/

I'm sure Mary is very concerned about the planet as she flies first class from 5 star hotel to 5 star hotel:pac:;)

Prawn sandwich socialist comes to mind..

_Brian

Dickie10 wrote: »

were getting back to different situations for different people lifestyles a bit like i was on about in 1970s lifestyle. theres a lad beside me who has a great life two or three holidays a year, takes a few sundays off milking getting a man in etc. he has very little overheads, wife has a very high paying job (phd in computers) he has no children and he milks 40 cows on about 60 acres. so depends on your needs i suppose

Honestly by what you’ve described the wife’s income is funding their lifestyle.

It’s like saying us keeping 25 dairy cross calves to stores is keeping my lifestyle and three holidays a year.

Angus2018

_Brian wrote: »

Seems to be more and more pressure being applied to public opinion, it will be very easy to turn more and more of the public against farming as a major source of global warming..

It's mad. Do these people not understand how food is made and that the world will soon have an unsustainable population.

Water John

The world won't have an unsustainable population. It will top out at about 11bn.
Between one third and a half of the food presently produced gets actually eaten.

The reality of the different GHGs and pollutants needs to be clarified and fully researched, esp on the agri side. Methane though more harmful in the short term than co2 breaks down in about 5 weeks AFAIK.
No2 is quite harmful, acid rain etc.
We don't know enough about sequestrisation. Conflicting messages out there.

_Brian

There were a few folk talking about snails some time ago, I wonder are there any about for an update ??
I’d get it hard to farm something I wouldn’t eat myself.

Have thought about keeping bees, but it’s hard to see it being something to scale up. I think I’d love some anyway.

Water John

You could, as well as the honey, rent out the hives to fruit growers, for pollination.

s7ryf3925pivug

Simmental. wrote: »

It makes little sense to pay european farmers to become less intensive and start sequestering carbon and then import beef from south american countries that burn 200,000 acres of rainforest every day for farming. Politicians like the idea because it looks like they are taking action against climate change in the eyes of the public

The EU like to say how they have improved the environment in Europe while ignoring the fact that the polluting manufacturing industries just moved to China.

Tax the imports heavily. Beef should be expensive.

yosemitesam1

_Brian wrote: »

There were a few folk talking about snails some time ago, I wonder are there any about for an update ??
I’d get it hard to farm something I wouldn’t eat myself.

Have thought about keeping bees, but it’s hard to see it being something to scale up. I think I’d love some anyway.

Easy to scale up bees if you know what you're at ;-) still fairly big money involved and hard work

yosemitesam1

Water John wrote: »

The world won't have an unsustainable population. It will top out at about 11bn.
Between one third and a half of the food presently produced gets actually eaten.

The reality of the different GHGs and pollutants needs to be clarified and fully researched, esp on the agri side. Methane though more harmful in the short term than co2 breaks down in about 5 weeks AFAIK.
No2 is quite harmful, acid rain etc.
We don't know enough about sequestrisation. Conflicting messages out there.

The one thing we don't really need is more research, all it does is keeps the teagasc lads on the gravy train drinking tea while delaying action in the hope they'll find an easy way out.

Nitrogen fertiliser is bad no matter what way you look at it and diverse low input swards lead to much higher soil carbon storage. It might cause a bit of pain implementing that, which is the problem for the government/teagasc.
With that simple change there'd be the potential to remove 100 million tonnes of co2 and reduce ag emissions by 30%

Water John

Maybe I phrased it incorrectly, it's about getting the alternative info out there.
Esp difficult when the CEO of a fertiliser co sits on the Board of Teagasc.

yosemitesam1

Water John wrote: »

Maybe I phrased it incorrectly, it's about getting the alternative info out there.
Esp difficult when the CEO of a fertiliser co sits on the Board of Teagasc.

Really it has to come from the bottom up like no till and conservation style crop farming. But the problem is without support and policy changing from the top there's no reason for anyone to change. Unless there's some sort of a marketing slant gained off it you're reducing output only because you beleive in it.

gozunda

Tar.Aldrion wrote:

That would likely be because of this UN report all over the news today:
https://www.bbc.com/ne...environment-45775309

.....

What can I do?
The report says there must be rapid and significant changes in four big global systems:

energy • land use • cities • industry
But it adds that the world cannot meet its target without changes by individuals, urging people to:

buy less meat, milk, cheese and butter and more locally sourced seasonal food - and throw less of it away • drive electric cars but walk or cycle short distances • take trains and buses instead of planes • use videoconferencing instead of business travel • use a washing line instead of a tumble dryer • insulate homes • demand low carbon in every consumer product
Lifestyle changes can make a big difference, said Dr Debra Roberts, the IPCC's other co-chair.

"That's a very empowering message for the individual," she said. "This is not about remote science; it is about where we live and work, and it gives us a cue on how we might be able to contribute to that massive change, because everyone is going to have to be involved."

"You might say you don't have control over land use, but you do have control over what you eat and that determines land use.

"We can choose the way we move in cities and if we don't have access to public transport - make sure you are electing politicians who provide options around public transport."

The bit with the most relevancy to here is interesting- it states that people should "buy less meat, milk, cheese and butter and more locally sourced seasonal food - and throw less of it away"

The facts are that meat, cheese and butter ARE locally sourced and often seasonal foods in Ireland. Lets compare those foodstuffs with for example high foodmile produce such as imported French Beans from Kenya or Avocados from Chile or Lentils from China or India. I do agree that there is huge need to deal with the problem of food waste however.

The main problem with that UN report is that a generalised global one approach fits all type of response to issues of food production.

Food production is dependendant on local climate, soils and topography. Whilst it may be lovely to think we can all grow and survive on only that which can be grown locally - history has shown that in Ireland and in many other countries that is a fallacy and not fixable through wishful thinking.

s7ryf3925pivug

Beef production involves particularly high emissions though. If you farm beef in a way that involves lower net emissions than typical, presumably you could farm sheep instead and have lower emissions again.

I remember reading that feeding cows seaweed makea them produce less methane. Is that a thing?

gozunda

Scarlette Proud Tearfully wrote: »

Beef production involves particularly high emissions though. If you farm beef in a way that involves lower net emissions than typical, presumably you could farm sheep instead and have lower emissions again.

I remember reading that feeding cows seaweed makea them produce less methane. Is that a thing?

One of the main problem is with how those emissions were being calculated. It is acknowledged that the figures fail to take account the natural sequestering of carbon in soils for grass fed animals and the relativly short life time of some gases such as methane. Interestingly figures for rice cultivation suggest it is an important source of methane realeased to the atmosphere. It also appears that emissions from forestry etc get thrown in with agriculture.

Some of the data put out about animal agriculture and ghg's has been found to be blatantly flawed such as the now debunked 'research paper' which detailed that animal agriculture was responsible for 51% of all ghg's. It's of little surprise that the author was a vegan with a specific agenda of portraying animal agriculture in a bad light.
See:
http://www.vancouverhumanesociety.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/Livestock-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions.-The-importance-of-getting-the-numbers-right.pdf
https://newint.org/blog/2016/02/10/cowspiracy-stampeding-in-the-wrong-direction
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-led-study-solves-a-methane-puzzle

It remains that agriculture's combined emmisions globally are less of that of transport and fossil fuels.

Afaik various research has shown that emissions can be reduced with new breeds of cattle that produce less methane, and recently developed food additives that reduce dairy cow emissions by 30% without affecting milk yields.

Farmer

Consumption of meat again taking a beating on News at 1 following World Wildlife Fund report stating that

"Populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians have, on average, declined in size by 60 percent in just over 40 years"

again blaming the farmer. Nobody seems to see that if the farmer wasn't forced to produce food at near or under cost price there might be less food waste and over production. Nobody sees that we are penalized for leaving wildlife friendly vegetation intact in corners of the farm. Nobody sees that, particularly in the NW that the blanket plantation of ground sterilizing Sitka Spruce instead of broadleaves could have an adverse effect on wildlife (not to mention water quality, tourism or least of all, the poor auld native humans )

No, we need to give up meat, keep up consumerism and double the size of Dublin airport!

_Brian

Farmer wrote: »

Consumption of meat again taking a beating on News at 1 following World Wildlife Fund report stating that

"Populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians have, on average, declined in size by 60 percent in just over 40 years"

again blaming the farmer. Nobody seems to see that if the farmer wasn't forced to produce food at near or under cost price there might be less food waste and over production. Nobody sees that we are penalized for leaving wildlife friendly vegetation intact in corners of the farm. Nobody sees that, particularly in the NW that the blanket plantation of ground sterilizing Sitka Spruce instead of broadleaves could have an adverse effect on wildlife (not to mention water quality, tourism or least of all, the poor auld native humans )

No, we need to give up meat, keep up consumerism and double the size of Dublin airport!

When something is cheap and easily gotten it looses its actual value. Then respect for the producer is lost as your “only” producing a low value product.

99% of the population have just no idea the work involved in producing their Sunday roast, and have no desire to find out.

Muckit

Haven't read the article yet but R Talbot is in Farming Indo again regarding viability of sucklers. He's been banging that drum with a while. If he can't make a living from it and he a top operator alarm bells should be ringing.

Birdnuts

Farmer wrote: »

Consumption of meat again taking a beating on News at 1 following World Wildlife Fund report stating that

"Populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians have, on average, declined in size by 60 percent in just over 40 years"

again blaming the farmer. Nobody seems to see that if the farmer wasn't forced to produce food at near or under cost price there might be less food waste and over production. Nobody sees that we are penalized for leaving wildlife friendly vegetation intact in corners of the farm. Nobody sees that, particularly in the NW that the blanket plantation of ground sterilizing Sitka Spruce instead of broadleaves could have an adverse effect on wildlife (not to mention water quality, tourism or least of all, the poor auld native humans )

No, we need to give up meat, keep up consumerism and double the size of Dublin airport!

Yeah - the irony is that low input extensive beef production(in the EU) is probably the most wildlife friendly food out there!!

Capercaillie

Would like to see more results based agri-environmental schemes. Pay farmers for eco-system services like water quality, protecting endangered species, planting native woodland.

Agri-schemes like GLAS pay the lad who puts in huge effort the same basically as the lad who does the bare minimum. End result is that there is no real financial incentive to put more work in and achieve better results.

patsy_mccabe

Saw a program last night on one of the UK channels about growing soya in Brazil. Vast tracts of land being cleared of indigenous people to supply the world's protein needs. Things are going to get a lot worst before they get better.

Siamsa Sessions

Capercaillie wrote: »

Would like to see more results based agri-environmental schemes. Pay farmers for eco-system services like water quality, protecting endangered species, planting native woodland.

Agri-schemes like GLAS pay the lad who puts in huge effort the same basically as the lad who does the bare minimum. End result is that there is no real financial incentive to put more work in and achieve better results.

Agreed. It would be more beneficial if there was a sliding scale of payments, and payments that were based on following thru on the scheme over say 10 years, rather than 3-5.

alps

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Saw a program last night on one of the UK channels about growing soya in Brazil. Vast tracts of land being cleared of indigenous people to supply the world's protein needs. Things are going to get a lot worst before they get better.

And much of the commentary yesterday about soya was how it was only grown to feed to animals. I wonder what percentage is going direct to humans?

Tar.Aldarion

alps wrote: »

And much of the commentary yesterday about soya was how it was only grown to feed to animals. I wonder what percentage is going direct to humans?

Most of it is grown because of livestock, something like 80-85% I've seen quoted before? Of whatever that amount is, the oil is removed and used for humans AFAIK, it's just not the driving force in the aggressive expansion. With the new madman in Brazil the Amazon is rightly ****ed.

Mooooo

alps wrote: »

And much of the commentary yesterday about soya was how it was only grown to feed to animals. I wonder what percentage is going direct to humans?

The majority of production is for oil, with the meal left over from that going as animal feed

yosemitesam1

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Most of it is grown because of livestocks, something like 80-85% I've seen quoted before? Of whatever that amount is, the oil is removed and used for humans AFAIK, it's just not the driving force in the aggressive expansion.

Quite a bit of what goes to feed animals is pig/poultry which we're told to eat more of than ruminant products because they're less bad for the environment...

alps

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Quite a bit of what goes to feed animals is pig/poultry which we're told to eat more of than ruminant products because they're less bad for the environment...

The inclusion of soya in a ruminantsbfeed in Ireland is miniscule to be fair. Concentrate feed making up about 10% of the diet and soya making up maybe 10% of that, it really makes sense that beef and milk production be prioritised in grassland areas of the world like Ireland..

_Brian

alps wrote: »

The inclusion of soya in a ruminantsbfeed in Ireland is miniscule to be fair. Concentrate feed making up about 10% of the diet and soya making up maybe 10% of that, it really makes sense that beef and milk production be prioritised in grassland areas of the world like Ireland..

What’s the point in prioritising beef production here when it’s essentially a break even business, how would farmers benifet from that ??

I’d wonder should subs for sika spruce be eliminated and more long term supports introduced for creating and managing native forests where biodiversity would flourish.

Dinzee Conlee

_Brian wrote: »

What’s the point in prioritising beef production here when it’s essentially a break even business, how would farmers benifet from that ??

I’d wonder should subs for sika spruce be eliminated and more long term supports introduced for creating and managing native forests where biodiversity would flourish.

There is a market for spruce. Its used in pretty much every building project, but native trees like ash / oak / birch - not sure where the market for this timber would be?

Like everything Brian, there is prob no one size fits all. There are places where spruce might be the best option, based on location, land quality, etc... Maybe a reduction in spruce vs an increase in native would be better?

Siamsa Sessions

Site inspection and suitability might help but tis a one size fits all at the moment

Water John

Irish spruce grows fast and as any carpenter will tell you, tends to be warped as f**k.
As a monoculture, it's plain ugly.

_Brian

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

There is a market for spruce. Its used in pretty much every building project, but native trees like ash / oak / birch - not sure where the market for this timber would be?

Like everything Brian, there is prob no one size fits all. There are places where spruce might be the best option, based on location, land quality, etc... Maybe a reduction in spruce vs an increase in native would be better?

Cheap timber with little structural value and when standing is a pure dead forest with no value to the beauty of tue countryside and no value to native wildlife. If you walk though a large stica spruce forestry it’s a dead zone.

When we value and promote this over native forestry we disrespect our natural heritage and biodiversity.

Surely combining the two current issues of beef being a zero sum game and the need to increase native woodland lends an opportunity for something inventive to be done.