Where now; from sucklers?

memorystick

A few pussfulls might calm down some of those mad sucklers lads are keeping.

Water John

Ha, spent a while loading a few Limousins today. They could have done with a reefer.

theaceofspies

It is fair to say from the most recent posts on Boards.ie that Irish beef farming as we know it is goosed (or like the frog in the boiling pot on the medium road to death).


Then you have the Farmers Journal with articles on fella's building state-of-the-art 'calf sheds' or "Get it up fast lads before the laying hen sees her bank account"



Who is financing these fella's:D and are they smarter than the fella paying a few euro for the privilege of reading this in the Journal. Talk about 'keeping up with the Jones' and all this while Rome burns.


P.S. I don't buy the Journal

Farmer

_Brian wrote: »

...
......
From the end of the premium to clearfell there is zero income, that’s 10-15 years of nothing. I can’t get my head around why that is an option for people.

So 15 years of modest premiums
15 years of nothing. .............
.

Does anybody know why the forestry premium was cut from 20 years to 15 years for farmers. Was it at the behest of the forestry companies so that farmers would be less likely to compete with them on land prices or plant it themselves?

croot

theaceofspies wrote: »

It is fair to say from the most recent posts on Boards.ie that Irish beef farming as we know it is goosed (or like the frog in the boiling pot on the medium road to death).


Then you have the Farmers Journal with articles on fella's building state-of-the-art 'calf sheds' or "Get it up fast lads before the laying hen sees her bank account"



Who is financing these fella's:D and are they smarter than the fella paying a few euro for the privilege of reading this in the Journal. Talk about 'keeping up with the Jones' and all this while Rome burns.


P.S. I don't buy the Journal

That was a dairy farmers calf shed.

croot

Farmer wrote: »

Does anybody know why the forestry premium was cut from 20 years to 15 years for farmers. Was it at the behest of the forestry companies so that farmers would be less likely to compete with them on land prices or plant it themselves?

Don’t think so. It was to boast about increased premia and more money for forestry but in actual fact they just took it from the last 5 years.

Farmer

...and in doing so, took away the 5 years advantage that the farmer had over anyone else

Therefore it was the non farmers and forestry companies that got the real increase

Thanks

wrangler

croot wrote: »

That was a dairy farmers calf shed.

No one is going to work in bad conditions now, while that shed was good, it was only four walls and a roof, you couldn't build much less and have it Crypto and virus proof.
farmers should maxing TAMs now if they can afford it

wrangler

Farmer wrote: »

...and in doing so, took away the 5 years advantage that the farmer had over anyone else

Therefore it was the non farmers and forestry companies that got the real increase

Thanks

TBF there shouldn't have been a difference at the start

Mac Taylor

Just reading a piece on carbon emissions, Saudi oil which is consumed in Ireland counts as part of our carbon emissions, we sell food to Saudi Arabia whose emissions does it go against? You would think Saudi....well your wrong it counts as part of our emissions....go figure, Colm McCarthy supports a universal consumption carbon tax....would this then hit exports as people who consume would have to start making hard choices.....new bmw v steak for dinner as an extreme example.

farawaygrass

Mac Taylor wrote: »

Just reading a piece on carbon emissions, Saudi oil which is consumed in Ireland counts as part of our carbon emissions, we sell food to Saudi Arabia whose emissions does it go against? You would think Saudi....well your wrong it counts as part of our emissions....go figure, Colm McCarthy supports a universal consumption carbon tax....would this then hit exports as people who consume would have to start making hard choices.....new bmw v steak for dinner as an extreme example.

I seen that too. Isn’t it total nonsense. Have it one way or the other

Mac Taylor

farawaygrass wrote: »

I seen that too. Isn’t it total nonsense. Have it one way or the other

Yeah he makes some interesting points.....US and Europe blame China yet as he puts it, have exported a lot of there carbon intensive production. Based on domestic consumption the carbon map would look very different

Figerty

Mac Taylor wrote: »

Just reading a piece on carbon emissions, Saudi oil which is consumed in Ireland counts as part of our carbon emissions, we sell food to Saudi Arabia whose emissions does it go against? You would think Saudi....well your wrong it counts as part of our emissions....go figure, Colm McCarthy supports a universal consumption carbon tax....would this then hit exports as people who consume would have to start making hard choices.....new bmw v steak for dinner as an extreme example.

Is the logic that the carbon is released from the Oil here.
The cows grow, belch and fart in Ireland, releasing the carbon here..

That would make sense.

Mac Taylor

Figerty wrote: »

Is the logic that the carbon is released from the Oil here.
The cows grow, belch and fart in Ireland, releasing the carbon here..

That would make sense.

Kinda but his point is products should be made where it is most efficient to do it.
If there is no demand it wouldn’t be produced, his point is it is most efficient to drill for oil in Saudi and for us to produce cattle from a carbon perspective rather than the other way round, there is a carbon foot print with producing oil aswell

Water John

The main use on farms of oil, imported energy, would be nitrogen fertiliser and tractor diesel.
The GHG produced would mainly be methane from cattle belching.

Willfarman

Water John wrote: »

The main use on farms of oil, imported energy, would be nitrogen fertiliser and tractor diesel.
The GHG produced would mainly be methane from cattle belching.

Intensive cattle rearing and fattening farms that use increased amounts of the above are supposed to be more carbon efficient than extensive or even organic farms.. that’s my reading of my board bia chart anyway. What utter nonsense.

gozunda

Figerty wrote: »

Is the logic that the carbon is released from the Oil here.
The cows grow, belch and fart in Ireland, releasing the carbon here..
That would make sense.

Well afaik the carbon figures include such things as transport and inputs as well

So this raises the interesting question that those who wish to offset their carbon commissions do so by getting others to shoulder the responsibility of production. A huge amount of Irish agricultural produce is consumed else where, a lot of it in Europe. Germany is a prime example of this and yet preaches to other countries about 'their responsibilitues" 

The carbon figures also appear to ignore carbon sequestration by grassland and has been much criticised.

gozunda

Water John wrote: »

The main use on farms of oil, imported energy, would be nitrogen fertiliser and tractor diesel.
The GHG produced would mainly be methane from cattle belching.

A recent NASA study, has confirmed that known Methane spike tied to Oil and Gas.

https://www.ecowatch.com/nasa-study-methane-spike-2526089909.html?fbclid=IwAR1U87gLM7Mz9MyrYPPoBEfixyCldqpLIDUR0H0ijJFSgRl4lRqoUEw0uxE

Interesting that rice farming has now been also identified as a major emitter of methane

Using this data, "the team showed that about 17 teragrams per year of the increase is due to fossil fuels, another 12 is from wetlands or rice farming, while fires are decreasing by about 4 teragrams per year," NASA said in a Jan. 2 press release. "The three numbers combine to 25 teragrams a year—the same as the observed increase."

148multi

Willfarman wrote: »

Intensive cattle rearing and fattening farms that use increased amounts of the above are supposed to be more carbon efficient than extensive or even organic farms.. that’s my reading of my board bia chart anyway. What utter nonsense.

As I understand it, in intensive farming the grass is more easily digested, as in more leaf and less stem or dead grass as would be the case in extensive farming, so less methane produced from intense farming.

Willfarman

It’s like an anology you’d see on a episode of the simpsons! Our extensive farming ancestors ruined the world but we will fix it with feedlots and imported artificial fertilizer,soya and maize.. and container loads of throwaway plastic consumer products from China!