Fields of lush green grass and nothing else.

Willfarman

These ducks had successfully bred twice two years in a row. The young ones never seemed to make it to adulthood from what I could see though. Bloody fox loves duck! The water hens always seem to make it though.

gozunda

Willfarman wrote: »

These ducks had successfully bred twice two years in a row. The young ones never seemed to make it to adulthood from what I could see though. Bloody fox loves duck! The water hens always seem to make it though.

Personally I love pheasant. Very tasty It's an introduced species that seems to do well here even where it goes wild and breeds.

As for duck - I have a wetland area where for years I've encouraged wild duck to nest and breed. I dont hunt them btw. Was wiped out last year by foxes ...

Chisler2

This issue needs to be elevated beyond the fantasy of yokels with pitchforks. Here is an excerpt from a lead article in today's Guardian written by Molly Scott Cato who is a member of the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee:-

"I have lost count of the number of times I have begun meetings with what feels like a sermon on the Armageddon taking place in our countryside. I am always greeted with patient, patronising smiles from many of my fellow MEPs, before they go on to ignore the warnings and refuse to limit the use of pesticides in our fields.

Some of the members of this committee are themselves farmers who have grown increasingly dependent on powerful and toxic pesticides. But others have taken the agribusiness shilling and believe that their role in policymaking is simply to support the corporations that sell these poisons.

(snip) What might accurately be dubbed insectageddon is being driven by the agrichemicals industry. This situation is compounded by compliant politicians and policymakers who fall prey to lobbying pressure and then refuse to implement science-driven policy to protect wildlife. This has meant that over the past five decades conventional farmers have forgotten the natural systems they once relied on to control pests. Non-organic agricultural systems are highly dependent on chemicals, so feeding a vicious circle.

But there is a legal route out of this – in Europe at least. Since 2009 the EU has adopted the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive. This aims to reduce the risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment, while prioritising the use of alternative approaches or techniques such as non-chemical methods.

However, because it is a directive rather than regulation it requires implementation in national law, and the vicious circle that has led to high levels of chemical dependency also operates at national level, meaning that member states have been slow to implement policies that reduce pesticide use.

And the agrichemical industry is literally writing pesticide assessments that are then presented as the work of regulators. A recent report exposed how EU regulators based a decision to relicense controversial glyphosate on an assessment plagiarised from industry reports. Around 50% of some chapters were actually a copy-and-paste job from papers Monsanto and other agrichemical corporates had written.

_Brian

Chisler2 wrote: »

This issue needs to be elevated beyond the fantasy of yokels with pitchforks. .

Quote whatever you want, it’s a long distance from the EU parliament to the back fields of an farm in Cavan or Leitrim, if you don’t engage and work with the “yokels” as you call us then nothing will be successful. Just to correct you, I’ve only one operating pitchfork, having broken the handle in the other recently.

There is also a fantasy that we can ban everything and take the hit on yields with no ill effect. It would result in less food security and more foods being introduced from areas farmed with no controls or worse areas where prime rainforest is being felled to produce it cheaply.

Chisler2

_Brian wrote: »

Quote whatever you want, it’s a long distance from the EU parliament to the back fields of an farm in Cavan or Leitrim, if you don’t engage and work with the “yokels” as you call us then nothing will be successful. Just to correct you, I’ve only one operating pitchfork, having broken the handle in the other recently.

There is also a fantasy that we can ban everything and take the hit on yields with no ill effect. It would result in less food security and more foods being introduced from areas farmed with no controls or worse areas where prime rainforest is being felled to produce it cheaply.

I am not calling "you" YOKELS. I picked up on an image from an earlier post of locals with pitchforks on one side and Coillte on the other in the Leitrim standoff.



Is the counter-position to "concern about loss of environmental biodiversity" that the optimal productive future for Irish farming is monoculture based on chemical and genetically-modifying technologies controlling all variables to produce food faster and in greater quantity?



.........and that the environment in which this occurs (soil, grass, air and water quality etc.) are irrelevant as they shall be superceded by this technology and these methods?


Have I understood correctly? If so, there are examples of the outcome of that approach already.......for example the USA. Beef export prices have dropped since 2017 and the meat is full of hormones and antibiotic.



Where is the increased Irish production intended for - given the low retail price and rising production costs for the farmer? I am puzzled by the argument that investment in, and caretaking of, environmental biodiversity would hit yields. Surely the point is it would sustain or increase quality?

Buford T. Justice XIX

Chisler2 wrote: »

I am not calling "you" YOKELS. I picked up on an image from an earlier post of locals with pitchforks on one side and Coillte on the other in the Leitrim standoff.



Is the counter-position to "concern about loss of environmental biodiversity" that the optimal productive future for Irish farming is monoculture based on chemical and genetically-modifying technologies controlling all variables to produce food faster and in greater quantity?



.........and that the environment in which this occurs (soil, grass, air and water quality etc.) are irrelevant as they shall be superceded by this technology and these methods?


Have I understood correctly? If so, there are examples of the outcome of that approach already.......for example the USA. Beef export prices have dropped since 2017 and the meat is full of hormones and antibiotic.



Where is the increased Irish production intended for - given the low retail price and rising production costs for the farmer? I am puzzled by the argument that investment in, and caretaking of, environmental biodiversity would hit yields. Surely the point is it would sustain or increase quality?

This type of comment annoys the bejaysus out of me. It's not an attack on you, Chisler, just that commentary in general.

All food is full of hormones, every single piece of food that passes peoples mouths contains hormones. It has to because they are the regulators that control chemical processes in the cells of plants and animals.


Hormones implanted in US beef has had a huge role in improving feed conversion efficiency in stock and has a negligible risk, once properly regulated and controlled. The scare stories about hormones remind me of the negative commentary about vaccines though with hugely less implications for peoples health.

Capercaillie

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

This type of comment annoys the bejaysus out of me. It's not an attack on you, Chisler, just that commentary in general.

All food is full of hormones, every single piece of food that passes peoples mouths contains hormones. It has to because they are the regulators that control chemical processes in the cells of plants and animals.


Hormones implanted in US beef has had a huge role in improving feed conversion efficiency in stock and has a negligible risk, once properly regulated and controlled. The scare stories about hormones remind me of the negative commentary about vaccines though with hugely less implications for peoples health.

Waffle from IFA/DAFM about hormones in meat is for trade reasons only. Same can be said about GMO.

gozunda

Capercaillie wrote: »

Waffle from IFA/DAFM about hormones in meat is for trade reasons only. Same can be said about GMO.

Even "plant based foodstuffs" contain hormones. It's the oft repeated rubbish you see from the same community falsely claiming that irish meat contains antibiotics and added hormones which really get my goat. You can ask him if you dont believe me!

Interesting article here

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-humans-gut-microbes-hormones.html

Gawddawggonnit

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

This type of comment annoys the bejaysus out of me. It's not an attack on you, Chisler, just that commentary in general.

All food is full of hormones, every single piece of food that passes peoples mouths contains hormones. It has to because they are the regulators that control chemical processes in the cells of plants and animals.


Hormones implanted in US beef has had a huge role in improving feed conversion efficiency in stock and has a negligible risk, once properly regulated and controlled. The scare stories about hormones remind me of the negative commentary about vaccines though with hugely less implications for peoples health.

+1.

Cattlepen

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

This type of comment annoys the bejaysus out of me. It's not an attack on you, Chisler, just that commentary in general.

All food is full of hormones, every single piece of food that passes peoples mouths contains hormones. It has to because they are the regulators that control chemical processes in the cells of plants and animals.


Hormones implanted in US beef has had a huge role in improving feed conversion efficiency in stock and has a negligible risk, once properly regulated and controlled. The scare stories about hormones remind me of the negative commentary about vaccines though with hugely less implications for peoples health.

In fairness to the man Buford he has a point about US beef. It is full of growth promoters and antibiotics for the most part. Hormonal growth promoters are used for making more money and the antibiotics are used to stop losing money through Animals being exposed a crap diet full of micotoxins because it’s the cheapest way of production. When Ralgro and finaplix were legal here it wasn’t good enough for the real smart boyos and they went and sourced clonbuterol through very nefarious sources. We don’t need to hear that growth promoters are not that bad.i think the EU was right to ban them. Good riddance to them

Chisler2

Car99 wrote: »

I'd like to get farmers thoughts on somethings I've notice over the last few years . I'm not criticising or judging how things are done id just like to know if farmers have noticed the same and are in any way concerned for the future.

I've lived in the country all my life , 45 years, in the Golden Vale .
Growing up I spent alot of time in a truck collecting bulk milk all over the area and so got to see alot of the farmland within a 20 mile radius of my home .
In the last few years its dawned on me that the landscape looks nothing like it did 30 years ago. Now most fields are dark green with not a sign of a hogweed or thistle , alot bigger and tidier drainage trenches (dykes we use to call em ) with hedgegrows cut down to a fraction of their previous size .
Rarely do I hear a pheasant calling or a rabbit sprint across the road in front of me at night . Hedgehogs and frogs were very common on the roads also years ago not now so I presume their number have declined.
Butterfly and bees also alot less common now.
Back in the day late August there were always a good few local fields with mushrooms now I rarely hear of any field with mushrooms.
A report today's says 40% reduction in insects has been observed and it will lead to big eco system issues in the near future

I know financial pressure and progress is pushing farmers to extract every last cent of profit from their land but at what cost to the eco systems on their land.

What incentives could be given to irradicate the use of pesticides and reduce the pressure on farmers to not have to farm so intensively?

I want to thank you for your thought-provoking question; I have read some thought-provoking responses but am finished with this thread. I have said what I wanted, apart from this.


I do not know what would incentivise food-producers to use strategies which harness the powers of nature rather than oppose nature.



Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" was published in 1962. ( Wikipedia has an excellent entry on Carson's work and the public and scientific reception of the books' premise if anyone is interested).



It intrigues me that in the subsequent 56 years very few scientifically-based comparative studies have been done on outcomes of populations fed by organic- versus conventionally-produced foods. Given the fundamental importance of nutrition the absence of unbiased research is "odd"........to put it mildly!


Absent such unbiased investigation those who believe conventional food-production and direction of use of land is as it should be, will continue to believe so. Those of us who believe the bio-sphere and our species' position in it to be integrated on every level and experience that integration to be at crisis point will continue to believe that.


Thank you again for articulating an important issue.

Chisler2

Cattlepen wrote: »

In fairness to the man Buford he has a point about US beef. It is full of growth promoters and antibiotics for the most part. Hormonal growth promoters are used for making more money and the antibiotics are used to stop losing money through Animals being exposed a crap diet full of micotoxins because it’s the cheapest way of production. When Ralgro and finaplix were legal here it wasn’t good enough for the real smart boyos and they went and sourced clonbuterol through very nefarious sources. We don’t need to hear that growth promoters are not that bad.i think the EU was right to ban them. Good riddance to them

Well put Cattlepen. By the way, I am a woman!

Buford T. Justice XIX

Cattlepen wrote: »

In fairness to the man Buford he has a point about US beef. It is full of growth promoters and antibiotics for the most part. Hormonal growth promoters are used for making more money and the antibiotics are used to stop losing money through Animals being exposed a crap diet full of micotoxins because it’s the cheapest way of production. When Ralgro and finaplix were legal here it wasn’t good enough for the real smart boyos and they went and sourced clonbuterol through very nefarious sources. We don’t need to hear that growth promoters are not that bad.i think the EU was right to ban them. Good riddance to them

Where antibiotics are used or related to those used in human medicine, I wouldn't have an issue with their banning for use in animals. Where they're used to cover for poor management or to accelerate growth without regard to the consequences, I wouldn't have an issue with their banning. Clenbuterol is rightly banned but the common hormones like that give a greater efficiency to the animal conversion of feed is just silly, imo.



And the bulk of antibiotics in animal use in the US is in chicken and pork but beef gets tarred with the same brush despite having a fraction of the usage.


Go figure!


And for the record, I would have a greater issue with drinking tap water in the UK than I would eating beef in the US, the risks seem to me to be much greater.


https://www.water-for-health.co.uk/our-blog/2015/05/sorry-did-you-just-say-there-are-hormones-in-my-tap-water/

Cattlepen

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Where antibiotics are used or related to those used in human medicine, I wouldn't have an issue with their banning for use in animals. Where they're used to cover for poor management or to accelerate growth without regard to the consequences, I wouldn't have an issue with their banning. Clenbuterol is rightly banned but the common hormones like that give a greater efficiency to the animal conversion of feed is just silly, imo.



And the bulk of antibiotics in animal use in the US is in chicken and pork but beef gets tarred with the same brush despite having a fraction of the usage.


Go figure!


And for the record, I would have a greater issue with drinking tap water in the UK than I would eating beef in the US, the risks seem to me to be much greater.


https://www.water-for-health.co.uk/our-blog/2015/05/sorry-did-you-just-say-there-are-hormones-in-my-tap-water/

Clenbuterol was always banned but it didn’t stop the greedy from using it because it left more profit than ralgro or finaplix.
Nearly all US beef is grain and by product fed feedlot beef. The antibiotics are fed through the water troughs because there will be inevitable problems because of the scale of operation and moldy micotoxin ridden feed. You and I might strip the bad silage off the top of a pit but anyone with a diets feeder throws the whole lot in because you can’t see it when it’s mixed. On a US scale the feed is all dumped outside in the element to steam away till it’s used and hence the need for antibiotics. There’s a little bit of that attitude creeping in here with the bigger feeders. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. I had to fix a drinker in a feedlot situation with all the above problems. The feed steaming outside for two weeks like dung. I couldn’t get the putrid smell off myself for 3 or 4 days. This was not just a dung or slurry smell, this was unhealthy

gozunda

Chisler2 wrote: »

I want to thank you for your thought-provoking question; I have read some thought-provoking responses but am finished with this thread. I have said what I wanted, apart from this
I do not know what would incentivise food-producers to use strategies which harness the powers of nature rather than oppose nature.
Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" was published in 1962. ( Wikipedia has an excellent entry on Carson's work and the public and scientific reception of the books' premise if anyone is interested).
It intrigues me that in the subsequent 56 years very few scientifically-based comparative studies have been done on outcomes of populations fed by organic- versus conventionally-produced foods. Given the fundamental importance of nutrition the absence of unbiased research is "odd"........to put it mildly!
Absent such unbiased investigation those who believe conventional food-production and direction of use of land is as it should be, will continue to believe so. Those of us who believe the bio-sphere and our species' position in it to be integrated on every level and experience that integration to be at crisis point will continue to believe that.
Thank you again for articulating an important issue.

Chisler - first bear with me if I find some of your comments a bit hard to read due to a somewhat different use of syntax. Apologies if I have picked up anything wrong.

Just a couple of points. Agricultural practice does not by definition 'oppose nature". Agriculture utilises seasons and growing cycles in order to produce crops and rear livestock. It is true however to say, that in Ireland these types of agricultural activities sometime support but have also displaced indiginous ecosystems and wild animals. Much of this at least partial displacement occurred when the land was first settled many millennia ago These impacts can be contrasted with the almost total displacement which occurs with the ongoing spread of urban areas and associated human infrastructure.

If you note I already replied to the OPs post and detailed that much of the observed changes are often dependant on a viewers perception and that the causes of such change are not always easy to determine. See for example the abundant wild mushroom harvest witnessed by many last year and noted on this forum.

In Ireland beef and dairy farming remains largely based on a grassland system. The intensity of much agricultural production in Ireland remains much less than many other countries. Certainly some agricultural practice has become divorced from land based systems such as the use of feed lots in the US or other intensive systems of production such as pig rearing.

Btw I remembered your introductory post in this forum and I would suggest that your experience of the US Grainbasket regions may perhaps be colouring your overall impression of farming and I quote:

beans on one side, corn on the other, hogs and feeder-cattle enterprise on a scale you would not believe (our next-door neighbour, an architect, owns an 800-acre farm which is managed by ONE EMPLOYEE with the kind of robotic planters, harvesters etc. which would strike terror!

I also note that you stated you lived in the UK for an extended period, where again agricultural policy and practice varies considerably from that found in this country. I have experience of both and both the scale and intensity of production methods between Ireland and the UK are markedly different imo.

It intrigues me that in the subsequent 56 years very few scientifically-based comparative studies have been done on outcomes of populations fed by organic - versus conventionally-produced foods.

I am familiar with Rachel Carson's seminal book. As to studies of "on outcomes of populations fed by organic - versus conventionally-produced foods" - the difficulty lies in the absence of any discrete population of people who only eat organic foods. Many people eat some organic foods - however the absence of cohorts of individuals eating a solely organic diet to compare vis a vis with a statistically valid sample group eating only "conventional food" would make such studies extremely difficult to undertake.

Those of us who believe the bio-sphere and our species' position in it to be integrated on every level and experience that integration to be at crisis point will continue to believe that.

With a human population of approximately eight billion on the planet - I believe that it is now practically impossible for "our species' position ...to be integrated on every level" . We have missed that boat. There is no rural idyll or any pleasant paradise where the total mass of humanity can frolick with the fawns whilst grazing from the fruits carried by trees in the forests or even close.

Can things improve over our present situation? I hope so. And in the meantime each of us should do what we can to work with nature as much as is possible.

Capercaillie

gozunda wrote: »

Chisler - first bear with me if I find some of your comments a bit hard to read due to a somewhat different use of syntax. Apologies if I have picked up anything wrong.

Just a couple of points. Agricultural practice does not by definition 'oppose nature". Agriculture utilises seasons and growing cycles in order to produce crops and rear livestock. It is true however to say, that in Ireland these types of agricultural activities sometime support but have also displaced indiginous ecosystems and wild animals. Much of this at least partial displacement occurred when the land was first settled many millennia ago These impacts can be contrasted with the almost total displacement which occurs with the ongoing spread of urban areas and associated human infrastructure.

If you note I already replied to the OPs post and detailed that much of the observed changes are often dependant on a viewers perception and that the causes of such change are not always easy to determine. See for example the abundant wild mushroom harvest witnessed by many last year and noted on this forum.

In Ireland beef and dairy farming remains largely based on a grassland system. The intensity of much agricultural production in Ireland remains much less than many other countries. Certainly some agricultural practice has become divorced from land based systems such as the use of feed lots in the US or other intensive systems of production such as pig rearing.

Btw I remembered your introductory post in this forum and I would suggest that your experience of the US Grainbasket regions may perhaps be colouring your overall impression of farming and I quote:



I also note that you stated you lived in the UK for an extended period, where again agricultural policy and practice varies considerably from that found in this country. I have experience of both and both the scale and intensity of production methods between Ireland and the UK are markedly different imo.



I am familiar with Rachel Carson's seminal book. As to studies of "on outcomes of populations fed by organic - versus conventionally-produced foods" - the difficulty lies in the absence of any discrete population of people who only eat organic foods. Many people eat some organic foods - however the absence of cohorts of individuals eating a solely organic diet to compare vis a vis with a statistically valid sample group eating only "conventional food" would make such studies extremely difficult to undertake.



With a human population of approximately eight billion on the planet - I believe that it is now practically impossible for "our species' position ...to be integrated on every level" . We have missed that boat. There is no rural idyll or any pleasant paradise where the total mass of humanity can frolick with the fawns whilst grazing from the fruits carried by trees in the forests or even close.

Can things improve over our present situation? I hope so. And in the meantime each of us should do what we can to work with nature as much as is possible.

Unfortunately our grass based beef/dairy/sheep systems have largely exterminated a large proportion of traditional farmland species over last 50 years and particularly the last 20 years. Some generalist species have done well but the majority have lost out.

gozunda

Capercaillie wrote: »

Unfortunately our grass based beef/dairy/sheep systems have largely exterminated a large proportion of traditional farmland species over last 50 years and particularly the last 20 years. Some generalist species have done well but the majority have lost out.

Do you mean farmland species of birds?
Tbh the amount of other types of wildlife with the exception of some birds hasn't been reduced imo. There are still plenty of foxes, hares, rabbits etc. In season I would still see signs of plenty of bank voles, Irish lizards and shrews. Most of these species live and feed in field margins and hedges and appear to be doing quite well imo. NPWS also reports that many of these animals remain abundant.

I do agree that grassland type has changed away from a mixed sward towards utility varieties such perennial rye grass. However for most mammals anyway this has not had a huge impact. From my own observations not all bird species have been impacted either with many birds continuing to breed successfully in hedges and field margins. I do believe wetland birds have taken a greater impact as well due to drainage. I have a maintained wetland area that I keep for wild fowl, with a very nice population of wild duck until these were largely wiped out by foxes last year....

Capercaillie

gozunda wrote: »

Do you mean farmland species of birds?
Tbh the amount of other types of wildlife with the exception of some birds hasn't been reduced imo. There are still plenty of foxes, hares, rabbits etc. In season I would still see signs of plenty of bank voles, Irish lizards and shrews. Most of these species live and feed in field margins and hedges and appear to be doing quite well imo. NPWS also reports that many of these animals remain abundant.

I do agree that grassland type has changed away from a mixed sward towards utility varieties such perennial rye grass. However for most mammals anyway this has not had a huge impact. From my own observations not all bird species have been impacted either with many birds continuing to breed successfully in hedges and field margins. I do believe wetland birds have taken a greater impact as well due to drainage. I have a maintained wetland area that I keep for wild fowl, with a very nice population of wild duck until these were largely wiped out by foxes last year....

Yes generalist like fox, rabbits doing well. Irish hare decreasing with intensification and pygmy shrew decreasing rapidly!

gozunda

Capercaillie wrote: »

Yes generalist like fox, rabbits doing well. Irish hare decreasing with intensification and pygmy shrew decreasing rapidly!

Plenty of shrews in this area tbh. The hare has become the favourite of a certain ethnic group more so imo. Saw two buck hares boxing in the middle of a busy road recently.

Birdnuts

gozunda wrote: »

Plenty of shrews in this area tbh. The hare has become the favourite of a certain ethnic group more so imo. Saw two buck hares boxing in the middle of a busy road recently.

The case of the Shrews is interesting - in some parts of the country the native Pygmy Shrew is being driven out by the newly arrived and slightly larger White-Toothed Shrew that has already spread across Tipp, Laois and Kildare. It arrived here by accident about 20 years ago in imported garden plants from the continent. Same as the Dormice that is also now present in that part of the country

Capercaillie

gozunda wrote: »

Plenty of shrews in this area tbh. The hare has become the favourite of a certain ethnic group more so imo. Saw two buck hares boxing in the middle of a busy road recently.

100 species of bees in Ireland, 50% in decline with a third in danger of extinction. Just an example of extinction crisis in Ireland....

wrangler

Capercaillie wrote: »

100 species of bees in Ireland, 50% in decline with a third in danger of extinction. Just an example of extinction crisis in Ireland....

Unless everyone is into conservation , there's no point of anyone bursting a gut at it.while the parks and wildlife are refusing to let authorities alleviate flooding, conservation is not going to gain any traction with farmers, if farmers don't support it more species will become extinct.
Most of us have enough to do to mind the animals we have, never mind the wildlife, Thousands of acres were sown down to trees with road construction, there should be enough habitats in that, like farmers they'll have to adapt

Capercaillie

wrangler wrote: »

Unless everyone is into conservation , there's no point of anyone bursting a gut at it.while the parks and wildlife are refusing to let authorities alleviate flooding, conservation is not going to gain any traction with farmers, if farmers don't support it more species will become extinct.
Most of us have enough to do to mind the animals we have, never mind the wildlife, Thousands of acres were sown down to trees with road construction, there should be enough habitats in that, like farmers they'll have to adapt

If pollinators become extinct, agriculture becomes extinct. We all become extinct. Tis alright though we will "adapt"...

farawaygrass

Was at a kt meeting last summer and the guy talking made a good point. He said he doesn’t buy the narrative that hedges are being wiped out. He asked everyone to give a show of hands who planted hedges in the last few years, and most people rose their hand. Glas of course was s factor but even outside of that people seem to be more conscious. Even the talk on this thread is encouraging to hear how farmers are trying to do their bit. The years of the boom were probably bad as sites were cleared but it’s going the right way again.

White Clover

Capercaillie wrote: »

If pollinators become extinct, agriculture becomes extinct. We all become extinct. Tis alright though we will "adapt"...

I get what you're trying to achieve, and admire you for it, but I think wrangler's point that wildlife will have to adapt would be my view too. I'm sure that down through the centuries, they have adapted to changes, and will do so again.

Buford T. Justice XIX

I always find it a bit peculiar that there's no mention of urban Ireland in conversations like this. The exact same criticisms can be leveled at the urban landscapes, lawns cut bare, no other species or weed present, walls or foreign non flowering hedging and so forth. And there's an amazing lack of wildlife outside of pigeons, seagulls and rats to be seen.


Do as I say not as I do?

Capercaillie

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I always find it a bit peculiar that there's no mention of urban Ireland in conversations like this. The exact same criticisms can be leveled at the urban landscapes, lawns cut bare, no other species or weed present, walls or foreign non flowering hedging and so forth. And there's an amazing lack of wildlife outside of pigeons, seagulls and rats to be seen.


Do as I say not as I do?

Don't think anybody would disagree with that. Most species of Irish gull in steep decline though.

Lefty Bicek

The people of Bavaria have voted on this within the last few days -

In the face of plummeting insect and bird populations, citizens in the south German state are trying to make farmers preserve habitat.

The petition itself is not... simply a high-minded statement of principle. It consists of four pages of detailed amendments to Bavaria’s nature protection law which, taken together, would fundamentally change how farming is done in the state, with the overall goal of creating a connected web of wildlife-friendly habitat.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/nature/bavarians-vote-to-save-bugs-and-birdsand-change-farming.aspx

I have to say that, based on conversations I have and overhear, that a lot of farming is neither one thing nor another in Ireland. It just seems like a moanfest of burden, a stewardship that can't be broken up or sold on, yet can't sustain a family without a day job as well, mountains of regulation and paperwork, it seems to necessitate people who are under the legal driving age to be on the roads in high-cost high-powered tractors, when it rains it rains too much and there's a fodder crisis, when it's dry it's too dry and that's a fodder crisis.

I would love to know what the incentive is in razing so much hedgerow to the scut ? It's a mania at this point. Roadsides I understand, the rest not so much.

yosemitesam1

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I always find it a bit peculiar that there's no mention of urban Ireland in conversations like this. The exact same criticisms can be leveled at the urban landscapes, lawns cut bare, no other species or weed present, walls or foreign non flowering hedging and so forth. And there's an amazing lack of wildlife outside of pigeons, seagulls and rats to be seen.


Do as I say not as I do?

Farming affects the vast majority of land, urbanizations effects are much much smaller and more localized

yosemitesam1

White Clover wrote: »

I get what you're trying to achieve, and admire you for it, but I think wrangler's point that wildlife will have to adapt would be my view too. I'm sure that down through the centuries, they have adapted to changes, and will do so again.

Would you expect monkeys in the amazon to give up living in trees and be able to survive off grass instead?

It's not possible for so many species to change because it would mean changing so much of what makes them them.




Does no one think that the countryside would be very bleak without a diverse wildlife present or can everyone not get enough of cows and ryegrass?

White Clover

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Would you expect monkeys in the amazon to give up living in trees and be able to survive off grass instead?

It's not possible for so many species to change because it would mean changing so much of what makes them them.





Does no one think that the countryside would be very bleak without a diverse wildlife present or can everyone not get enough of cows and ryegrass?

You are making out that the whole country is covered in ryegrass, I'd wager it's in the minority by a good distance. As you said yourself about urban areas, ryegrass dominated areas are localised too.

older by the day

Well all I know the biggest destruction to wildlife habitat in my area was when the green party was in power. How many acres of middling land was reclaimed to try and avoid fines to the single farm payment. I had an inspection and every tree and bush we argued about. What "graze on" was used on ditchs that year. Even still my maps are covered with red lines every year.

yosemitesam1

farawaygrass wrote: »

Was at a kt meeting last summer and the guy talking made a good point. He said he doesn’t buy the narrative that hedges are being wiped out. He asked everyone to give a show of hands who planted hedges in the last few years, and most people rose their hand. Glas of course was s factor but even outside of that people seem to be more conscious. Even the talk on this thread is encouraging to hear how farmers are trying to do their bit. The years of the boom were probably bad as sites were cleared but it’s going the right way again.

Take into account hedge quality.

If you count all the grassy stumps, sprayed ditches and hedges cut back too tight every year as lost hedges, there'd be a fairly large decline.

Just because an area is or isn't being used intensively by farming doesn't decide whether or not it will support wildlife.
You have to consider it from the point of view of multiple species of birds, bees etc...

Buford T. Justice XIX

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Farming affects the vast majority of land, urbanizations effects are much much smaller and more localized

But they seem unwilling to do on a small scale what they charge us to do on a large scale. They dislike unkempt lawns but task us with doing that on a large scale. Unwilling to let briars and weeds grow providing food and habitat for urban wildlife, to me it seems disingenuous to criticise farmers for doing likewise.

I'll be spraying a lot of wiring off this year as my local hedge cutter is unable to gey everyone's hedges cut before the season closes. I'm responsible for keeping my stock inside my land and overgrown hedges tend to make that difficult so I have a legal requirement to control the vegetation. That's even before, as someone mentioned earlier, deductions for hedges being too 'healthy.

Fined if you do and criticised if you don't. I'll just ignore the criticism, tbh.

Lano Lynn

older by the day wrote: »

Well all I know the biggest destruction to wildlife habitat in my area was when the green party was in power. How many acres of middling land was reclaimed to try and avoid fines to the single farm payment. I had an inspection and every tree and bush we argued about. What "graze on" was used on ditchs that year. Even still my maps are covered with red lines every year.

u can't blame the green party for that .the dept of ag establish the geac specifications the irony that most of the areas deducted or penalised on most farms are the areas of most biodiversity so I am looking forward to having my eligible area reinstated and a significant bonus for maintaining them …….I need some unicorns to qualify for grazing though:D

older by the day

My point exactly, if some one is on here complaining about farmers, we need help and not abuse. When you get fined for a hedge being too wide or a bunch of briars in a corner of a field. What do you think is going to happen?

older by the day

Lano Lynn wrote: »

older by the day wrote: »

Well all I know the biggest destruction to wildlife habitat in my area was when the green party was in power. How many acres of middling land was reclaimed to try and avoid fines to the single farm payment. I had an inspection and every tree and bush we argued about. What "graze on" was used on ditchs that year. Even still my maps are covered with red lines every year.

u can't blame the green party for that .the dept of ag establish the geac specifications the irony that most of the areas deducted or penalised on most farms are the areas of most biodiversity so I am looking forward to having my eligible area reinstated and a significant bonus for maintaining them …….I need some unicorns to qualify for grazing though:D

You can blame the green party because they were holding up fianna fail in government at the time. And it was then the policy of fineing farmer was enforsed. I know the eu were going to fine the government but as the greens were in power rhey should have battled it. I'm as green as the average guy.

wrangler

Lano Lynn wrote: »

u can't blame the green party for that .the dept of ag establish the geac specifications the irony that most of the areas deducted or penalised on most farms are the areas of most biodiversity so I am looking forward to having my eligible area reinstated and a significant bonus for maintaining them …….I need some unicorns to qualify for grazing though:D

The EU did an audit and found thousands of claimed acres not eligible, roads, sites not taken out, even one farmer claiming for a lake, Northern Ireland applied an across the board penalty, however our department only penalised the messsers.
What choice had they, They had to stop overclaiming

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ireland-to-be-fined-63m-for-false-farm-payment-claims-355803.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-15631617

Birdnuts

White Clover wrote: »

I get what you're trying to achieve, and admire you for it, but I think wrangler's point that wildlife will have to adapt would be my view too. I'm sure that down through the centuries, they have adapted to changes, and will do so again.

Its not that simple though - the current extinction rate is thousands of times above the natural one. Plus there is only so much "adapting" you can do when your habitat is gone, oceans full of plastic etc. Some species will always survive - but who wants to live in a world with just rats and cockroaches as company

Birdnuts

wrangler wrote: »

The EU did an audit and found thousands of claimed acres not eligible, roads, sites not taken out, even one farmer claiming for a lake, Northern Ireland applied an across the board penalty, however our department only penalised the messsers.
What choice had they, They had to stop overclaiming

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ireland-to-be-fined-63m-for-false-farm-payment-claims-355803.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-15631617

The Dept though illegally cut payment to folk with designated land and Natura farmers had to go to the High court a few years ago to get justice. No argument about folks claiming for roads, lakes and that, but it is simply illogical to pay one set of farmers money to preserve habitat while penalizing another set for having a bit of scrub or woodland on the place. Indeed it makes no sense in terms of basic soil health and maintainance to remove natural cover from steep hilly sites and near waterways. In any case the CAP is meant to be cross compliant with various water, habitat and other environmental Directives but is clearly not being implemented in a way that respects this. Hopefully the new CAP will end this state of affairs assuming vested interests don't water such things down again

Capercaillie

White Clover wrote: »

I get what you're trying to achieve, and admire you for it, but I think wrangler's point that wildlife will have to adapt would be my view too. I'm sure that down through the centuries, they have adapted to changes, and will do so again.

Let them "eat cake" approach, unfortunately doesn't really work. Don't think a corncrake is going to adapt to a meadow that's cut in May or June, I wish they could.

older by the day

wrangler wrote: »

Lano Lynn wrote: »

u can't blame the green party for that .the dept of ag establish the geac specifications the irony that most of the areas deducted or penalised on most farms are the areas of most biodiversity so I am looking forward to having my eligible area reinstated and a significant bonus for maintaining them …….I need some unicorns to qualify for grazing though:D

The EU did an audit and found thousands of claimed acres not eligible, roads, sites not taken out, even one farmer claiming for a lake, Northern Ireland applied an across the board penalty, however our department only penalised the messsers.
What choice had they, They had to stop overclaiming

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ireland-to-be-fined-63m-for-false-farm-payment-claims-355803.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-15631617

Here we go, IFA a stood idle when the small farmers were being fined for having to farm on poor land. Look at them all excited no when the big farmers are getting capped on there sfp. If the Ifa had supported the smaller farmer that time, they could have been a lot more habitat untouched around the country.

Capercaillie

older by the day wrote: »

Here we go, IFA a stood idle when the small farmers were being fined for having to farm on poor land. Look at them all excited no when the big farmers are getting capped on there sfp. If the Ifa had supported the smaller farmer that time, they could have been a lot more habitat untouched around the country.

Yip, IFA demanded that GLAS payments were capped, they were worried Pillar I payments would be cut if too much money put in Pillar II.

wrangler

older by the day wrote: »

Here we go, IFA a stood idle when the small farmers were being fined for having to farm on poor land. Look at them all excited no when the big farmers are getting capped on there sfp. If the Ifa had supported the smaller farmer that time, they could have been a lot more habitat untouched around the country.

Why fine the farmers that were doing it right, IFA didn't stand idly by, farmers didn't get half the penalties they should've got, as far as I can remember they should've been penalised for all the years that they submitted ineligible land, Ithink they were only fined for two years, Big or small didn't make any difference, good or bad land, too many were chancing their arm.
I say again why fine the farmers that were doing it right...... what's the point of following the rules if people that are messing expect you to take the hit for them.
Taking out sites and continuing to claim and there was worse than that.......like WTF
Paying subsidies for neglected land wasn't what the SFP was for, it clearly states good agiculture condition

wrangler

Capercaillie wrote: »

Yip, IFA demanded that GLAS payments were capped, they were worried Pillar I payments would be cut if too much money put in Pillar II.

That's bull**** and you know it
Larger farmers would take it all if it wasn't capped , is that what you want.
I'm no genius and I've never had a subsidy penalty, can't be that hard,
BPM WILL SORT ALL FOR YOU.......AS IF

Capercaillie

wrangler wrote: »

That's bull**** and you know it
Larger farmers would take it all if it wasn't capped , is that what you want.
I'm no genius and I've never had a subsidy penalty, can't be that hard,
BPM WILL SORT ALL FOR YOU.......AS IF

GLAS was also manipulated by IFA so farmers with pathetic examples of wildlife habitat could claim payments. GLAS should have been results based, reward the farmer with the best habitats/greatest number of threatened species. GLAS is a joke and pathetically continually cited by groups such as Origin Green (Origin Fraud)/IFA as some great agri scheme..

wrangler

Capercaillie wrote: »

GLAS was also manipulated by IFA so farmers with pathetic examples of wildlife habitat could claim payments. GLAS should have been results based, reward the farmer with the best habitats/greatest number of threatened species. GLAS is a joke and pathetically continually cited by groups such as Origin Green (Origin Fraud)/IFA as some great agri scheme..

Typical , talk down all the brands, the quality symbols, I've had loads of foreign buyers on my farm and they're well impressed by the green grass, farm records, quality and cleanliness of the stock,
and people who are clueless then run down the irish beef and lamb industry on social media, I'm not talking about vegans but a worse shower.
They're like a young fellow knocking the old house on the farm and not having the where withall to build a new one.
Thankfully I'm not depending on beef and lamb for an income now, if I was I'd be very disappointed with the image that is being portrayed of your produce by irish farmers.
Talk down the products if you like, processors only want a margin and they'll have that at €2/kg the same as €5/kg

Birdnuts

wrangler wrote: »

Typical , talk down all the brands, the quality symbols, I've had loads of foreign buyers on my farm and they're well impressed by the green grass, farm records, quality and cleanliness of the stock,
and people who are clueless then run down the irish beef and lamb industry on social media, I'm not talking about vegans but a worse shower.
They're like a young fellow knocking the old house on the farm and not having the where withall to build a new one.
Thankfully I'm not depending on beef and lamb for an income now, if I was I'd be very disappointed with the image that is being portrayed of your produce by irish farmers.
Talk down the products if you like, processors only want a margin and they'll have that at €2/kg the same as €5/kg

Theres legitimate questions to be asked about the basis of the likes "Origin Green" - if its not based on solid data and fact, then it will end badly and do permanent damage to brand Ireland. As it is data from the likes of the EPA etc. which was widely reported last summer does not tally with that element of Bord Bia's marketing. Pulling the wool over consumers eyes is not a good marketing strategy in the long run. New Zealand went down a similar route with labels for this, that and the other but ended up with the "Dirty Dairy" tag when the reality of the industry was exposed!!

older by the day

Ah birdnuts, in fairness, an educated man like you, should be trying to think of ways to help keep the "family farm" system going here in Ireland. It's better for the rural economy and the environment. I'm up here at three tonight watching a cow calving and il wait until I give the calf a drink. Please don't confuse the average Irish farmer with what happens in New Zealand. Glas and reps are a help to the environment,. Instead of people knocking us, can't you think of ideas that farmers can use to help the environment.

gozunda

Birdnuts wrote: »

Theres legitimate questions to be asked about the basis of the likes "Origin Green" - if its not based on solid data and fact, then it will end badly and do permanent damage to brand Ireland. As it is data from the likes of the EPA etc. which was widely reported last summer does not tally with that element of Bord Bia's marketing. Pulling the wool over consumers eyes is not a good marketing strategy in the long run. New Zealand went down a similar route with labels for this, that and the other but ended up with the "Dirty Dairy" tag when the reality of the industry was exposed!!

Birdnuts you never appear to have anything positive ever about agriculture here tbh. I see plenty of neighbours doing work for conservation, wildlife and ecology and farming as well. Knocking everyone all the time gets a bit tiresome tbh. I know well what group of extremists use the 'dirty dairy' for their agenda. Their a dirty shower of cnuts themselves.