Ear to the ground

JohnnyKq

_Brian wrote: »

Yes I’ve often criticised the poor sewage treatment destroying our waterways. But that doesn’t deter me from the possibility that the recent expansion of dairy in the area isn’t a problem.

We can’t say, but look that’s bad too so it’s ok if dairy pollutes even more on top. Truth is all sources of pollution need addressing. This being a farming forum we need to know if there is a farming aspect to the pollution and own that.

Farming is overblamed for pollution. Im sure some multinational waste in some areas have a significantly higher impact on the environment that most natural farming waste does

Say my name

_Brian wrote: »

Yes I’ve often criticised the poor sewage treatment destroying our waterways. But that doesn’t deter me from the possibility that the recent expansion of dairy in the area isn’t a problem.

We can’t say, but look that’s bad too so it’s ok if dairy pollutes even more on top. Truth is all sources of pollution need addressing. This being a farming forum we need to know if there is a farming aspect to the pollution and own that.

All sources are not being addressed.
Only the bovines are being blamed.
How can you own that when there's zero accountability on other parts in agriculture let alone outside it.

There's a graph above that shows a tillage area being the highest nitrate leacher into waterway in Ireland. Bring that up when someone tells you your cattle are the cause of damage to the waterways and that you should be tilling your land and producing oat milk. Tell them to own that.

Any book by David R Montgomery is a good read.

JohnnyKq

Say my name wrote: »

All sources are not being addressed.
Only the bovines are being blamed.
How can you own that when there's zero accountability on other parts in agriculture let alone outside it.

There's a graph above that shows a tillage area being the highest nitrate leacher into waterway in Ireland. Bring that up when someone tells you your cattle are the cause of damage to the waterways and that you should be tilling your land and producing oat milk. Tell them to own that.

Any book by David R Montgomery is a good read.

Cattle are being blamed for a lot of environmental damage in Ireland which is unfair. Brazil eco policy does not agree with this. Some small China factories produce more environmental harm that all of the Irish herd per week.

Say my name

JohnnyKq wrote: »

Cattle are being blamed for a lot of environmental damage in Ireland which is unfair. Brazil eco policy does not agree with this. Some small China factories produce more environmental harm that all of the Irish herd per week.

Can I ask...Are you Brazilian?

I'm not bothered either way just curious.

JohnnyKq

Say my name wrote: »

Can I ask...Are you Brazilian?

I'm not bothered either way just curious.

No. My point refers to Environmental policy and how its dictated by country exports.

Birdnuts

Water John wrote: »

Tillage ground with shallow soil depth overlaying limestone is the biggest leacher.
Wells can change quite quickly and go over 25 which then becomes a concern.

Its vulnereable to intensive livestock farming too - in the 80's on my mother place near Ballinrobe, serious pollution of the River Robe and Lough Carra was caused when slatted sheds etc. came in as its all Turlough/Limstone land in that area. In fairness things have improved since via various Farm pollution schemes but there are still issues with poor slurry handling and excessive chem fert use on some farms.

ruwithme

Bit late now but anyway,slatted sheds should have being encouraged to be built on dry blocks off land where by cattle would come into the shed to feed and lie down in bad weather and back out then at their leisure.

This would have suited many with drystock in particular and a few dry acres. Yes poaching would be nasty,but on drier land only ,yes it would take time in the spring to recover,but recover it would with time.

This wasn't really allowed when cheques in the post became a bigger part of income .doesn't mean it would have being wrong though in my opinion.

Results being less slurry needing to be spread annually across the country and indeed less diesel being burned. But i suppose you mightened tell them this.

Water John

The sheltered field by the shed had a lot going for it. Nowadays my one produces some amount of grass.

_Brian

Say my name wrote: »

All sources are not being addressed.
Only the bovines are being blamed.
How can you own that when there's zero accountability on other parts in agriculture let alone outside it.

There's a graph above that shows a tillage area being the highest nitrate leacher into waterway in Ireland. Bring that up when someone tells you your cattle are the cause of damage to the waterways and that you should be tilling your land and producing oat milk. Tell them to own that.

Any book by David R Montgomery is a good read.

Each individual source of pollution needs to be addressed. There can be no exemptions for either sewage nor farming. And because one isn’t being addressed correctly doesn’t give the others a free hand.

And yes livestock farming is being scrutinised for every slip it makes. All the more reason not to be making mistakes.

Say my name

_Brian wrote: »

Each individual source of pollution needs to be addressed. There can be no exemptions for either sewage nor farming. And because one isn’t being addressed correctly doesn’t give the others a free hand.

And yes livestock farming is being scrutinised for every slip it makes. All the more reason not to be making mistakes.

Can I hear an Amen that tilled ground releases a lot more nitrates to waterways than non tilled ground with continuous cover?

jaymla627

_Brian wrote: »

Each individual source of pollution needs to be addressed. There can be no exemptions for either sewage nor farming. And because one isn’t being addressed correctly doesn’t give the others a free hand.

And yes livestock farming is being scrutinised for every slip it makes. All the more reason not to be making mistakes.

I'd say the Irish water budget for the next few years will maybe stretch to a few rolls of half inch piping and straight joiners, its wishful thinking they will go on a multi billion euro spending spree to tackle sewage and waste water plants that are not up to standard

_Brian

Say my name wrote: »

Can I hear an Amen that tilled ground releases a lot more nitrates to waterways than non tilled ground with continuous cover?

Of course.
But your straying into whataboutery regarding the ETTG article.

Each industry and indeed sector within each industry need to do their bit without pointing fingers elsewjere. That’s all I’m saying.

Say my name

_Brian wrote: »

Of course.
But your straying into whataboutery regarding the ETTG article.

Each industry and indeed sector within each industry need to do their bit without pointing fingers elsewjere. That’s all I’m saying.

But every sector is not doing their bit.
They do of course need to do their bit.

But we've just had a government incentivise ploughing of tillage ground for next year. Releasing more nitrates to waterways than if they were min tilled or had plant cover.
This is from a Green government.
With not one word from the epa or even the farm orgs against it.

In the U.S. they banned tillage farmers in parts from ploughing and implemented mintill with mandatory green cover because of nitrate release.
Here we promote it.
Are you getting the hypocrisy.

Gawddawggonnit

https://youtu.be/MRnmWPWHVYM


This is a perfect example of the gravity given by the powers that be to the nitrate crisis.

alps

jaymla627 wrote: »

I'd say the Irish water budget for the next few years will maybe stretch to a few rolls of half inch piping and straight joiners, its wishful thinking they will go on a multi billion euro spending spree to tackle sewage and waste water plants that are not up to standard

https://westcorkpeople.ie/environment/holly-cairns-td-and-councillor-paul-hayes-seek-clarification-on-disgraceful-situation-for-shannonvale-residents/

1.2 million bill looming to solve the issue for 9 houses that currently send their untreated muck to Courtmacsherry bay..

zf0wqv9oemuasj

I must say I really enjoy ear to the ground and always watch it, I don’t get the hate toward it we have no other farming program which is a shame we don’t have more. I think it’s too much for a 30 min slot though and would like to see an hour long more comprehensive show.

To be honest the most thing I dislike about the program is that I get jealous of all the farms with added value farm businesses that support the family and maybe even a few families all from the home farm.

foxy farmer

alps wrote: »

https://westcorkpeople.ie/environment/holly-cairns-td-and-councillor-paul-hayes-seek-clarification-on-disgraceful-situation-for-shannonvale-residents/

1.2 million bill looming to solve the issue for 9 houses that currently send their untreated muck to Courtmacsherry bay..

That's only just one source of pollution above the water treatment plant at Jones Bridge providing mains water for a large area around Clonakilty.

Nadia Unsightly Fiddle

Nadia Unsightly Fiddle wrote: »

I must say I really enjoy ear to the ground and always watch it, I don’t get the hate toward it we have no other farming program which is a shame we don’t have more. I think it’s too much for a 30 min slot though and would like to see an hour long more comprehensive show.

To be honest the most thing I dislike about the program is that I get jealous of all the farms with added value farm businesses that support the family and maybe even a few families all from the home farm.

I don't hate it but there certainly is a bias. It's a magazine show so won't say anything controversial - that is controversial against the tide or accepted belief by our betters. Everything will be run through the lawyers.

That is it's biggest failing.

wrangler

Nadia Unsightly Fiddle wrote: »

I must say I really enjoy ear to the ground and always watch it, I don’t get the hate toward it we have no other farming program which is a shame we don’t have more. I think it’s too much for a 30 min slot though and would like to see an hour long more comprehensive show.

To be honest the most thing I dislike about the program is that I get jealous of all the farms with added value farm businesses that support the family and maybe even a few families all from the home farm.

I always watch it too, it seems to get a good audience, I watch a lot of farming programs, it's good entertainment.
Channel 5 has good farming programs, a new one now at 7pm on sundays, started ast sunday, I haven't seen it yet

Buford T. Justice XIX

alps wrote: »

https://westcorkpeople.ie/environment/holly-cairns-td-and-councillor-paul-hayes-seek-clarification-on-disgraceful-situation-for-shannonvale-residents/

1.2 million bill looming to solve the issue for 9 houses that currently send their untreated muck to Courtmacsherry bay..

I'm sure those issues will also be outlined on the next programme....

Yeah.

newholland mad

Say my name wrote: »

But every sector is not doing their bit.
They do of course need to do their bit.

But we've just had a government incentivise ploughing of tillage ground for next year. Releasing more nitrates to waterways than if they were min tilled or had plant cover.
This is from a Green government.
With not one word from the epa or even the farm orgs against it.

In the U.S. they banned tillage farmers in parts from ploughing and implemented mintill with mandatory green cover because of nitrate release.
Here we promote it.
Are you getting the hypocrisy.

What exactly is the government incentive to plough ground for next year. I must have missed it

alps

newholland mad wrote: »

What exactly is the government incentive to plough ground for next year. I must have missed it

€10m fund to incentivise tillage farmers to plough in straw.

Reason would suggest this should read "incorporate" straw. Details not yet published...concern generally iver the use of the word "plough"..

newholland mad

alps wrote: »

€10m fund to incentivise tillage farmers to plough in straw.

Reason would suggest this should read "incorporate" straw. Details not yet published...concern generally iver the use of the word "plough"..

I'd say that was a journalist creating a fancy headline rather than reality. Most tillage farmer's that are likely to chop are mintill anyway especially since mintill is already an option in glas. I'd say the idea of chopping straw will create more upset than the idea of using a plough. Had a man over paying for straw on Friday and he was fuming over the idea of farmers being paid to chop. Its already scarce and expensive enough he thought.

_Brian

newholland mad wrote: »

I'd say that was a journalist creating a fancy headline rather than reality. Most tillage farmer's that are likely to chop are mintill anyway especially since mintill is already an option in glas. I'd say the idea of chopping straw will create more upset than the idea of using a plough. Had a man over paying for straw on Friday and he was fuming over the idea of farmers being paid to chop. Its already scarce and expensive enough he thought.

Anything other than saving straw puts pressure to extract more peat which is desperately damaging to our bogs.

gozunda

newholland mad wrote: »

What exactly is the government incentive to plough ground for next year. I must have missed it

Article here about it

https://www.farmersjournal.ie/amp/incorporation-of-straw-to-be-encouraged-578424

The aim

Increasing the soil organic carbon levels of arable soils has been identified in the Teagasc MACC [marginal abatement cost curve] curve as a carbon sequestration action.

Don't think they've been working with the heads in Europe....

Climate change mitigation. 

The most carbon-rich soils are peatlands, mostly found in northern Europe, the UK and Ireland. Grassland soils also store a lot of carbon per hectare...

The fastest way to increase organic carbon in farmed soil is to convert arable land to grassland...

On farmland, ploughing the soil is known to accelerate decomposition and mineralisation of organic matter. In order to keep carbon and nutrients in the soil, researchers suggest reducing tillage

https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2015/articles/soil-and-climate-change

ruwithme

Ah the lovely Ella,she knows where the camera is.

Birdnuts

https://www.thejournal.ie/spruced-up-pt1-5241271-Oct2020/

Like many I am sick of the obsession some parts of the media have about climate and Irish farming compared to other sectors - that is why it is a timely that this long but brilliant piece highlighting how primitive and outdated forestry policies in this country are a big part of the problem when it comes to CO2 and biodiversity destruction.

NcdJd

Birdnuts wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/spruced-up-pt1-5241271-Oct2020/

Like many I am sick of the obsession some parts of the media have about climate and Irish farming compared to other sectors - that is why it is a timely that this long but brilliant piece highlighting how primitive and outdated forestry policies in this country are a big part of the problem when it comes to CO2 and biodiversity destruction.

There's a comment at the end of the page where a link to a gofundme page where a lad is trying to raise 2.5 million euros to buy 10000 acres of commonage in Connemara so he can plant trees and introduce Wolves on it.. no contributions yet ha.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/building-an-native-irish-wildlife-sanctuary?utm_medium=email&utm_source=product&utm_campaign=p_email+7500-amplify_campaign

kerryjack

It's not worth watching these days, like a lot of RTE ****e that's out there.

giveitholly

NcdJd wrote: »

There's a comment at the end of the page where a link to a gofundme page where a lad is trying to raise 2.5 million euros to buy 10000 acres of commonage in Connemara so he can plant trees and introduce Wolves on it.. no contributions yet ha.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/building-an-native-irish-wildlife-sanctuary?utm_medium=email&utm_source=product&utm_campaign=p_email%2B7500-amplify_campaign

Doubt trees would even grow on commonage,and that's not to even mention the wolves

NcdJd

giveitholly wrote: »

Doubt trees would even grow on commonage,and that's not to even mention the wolves

Don't worry giveitholly, he said he is going to fence it off so that humans can't get near the cuddly bears and cute wolfies..

Birdnuts

NcdJd wrote: »

There's a comment at the end of the page where a link to a gofundme page where a lad is trying to raise 2.5 million euros to buy 10000 acres of commonage in Connemara so he can plant trees and introduce Wolves on it.. no contributions yet ha.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/building-an-native-irish-wildlife-sanctuary?utm_medium=email&utm_source=product&utm_campaign=p_email%2B7500-amplify_campaign

I;d like to buy Mayo myself cos I'd just have to fence off 2 sides:D;)

gozunda

NcdJd wrote: »

There's a comment at the end of the page where a link to a gofundme page where a lad is trying to raise 2.5 million euros to buy 10000 acres of commonage in Connemara so he can plant trees and introduce Wolves on it.. no contributions yet ha.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/building-an-native-irish-wildlife-sanctuary?utm_medium=email&utm_source=product&utm_campaign=p_email%2B7500-amplify_campaign

Claims thst he is" creating an area for native wildlife" but at the same time wants to introduce "brown bear, wild boar, eurasian lynx, grey wolf etc and let them roam the land".

There'll by fuk all native wildlife left after that lot get started ...

giveitholly

giveitholly wrote: »

Doubt trees would even grow on commonage,and that's not to even mention the wolves

I have serious disagreements with rewilding, mostly the landlordism/EcoColonialism/utter disregard for the people who actually own that land. But, trees would grow in a lot of places if the right conditions were provided. You'll find them growing on many islands in lakes and in cracks on cliff faces etc.

_Brian

Deleted User wrote: »

I have serious disagreements with rewilding, mostly the landlordism/EcoColonialism/utter disregard for the people who actually own that land. But, trees would grow in a lot of places if the right conditions were provided. You'll find them growing on many islands in lakes and in cracks on cliff faces etc.

Rewinding would be fine if it came with lifetime guaranteed payments.
If they want to rewind land then it’s going to cost long term, can’t the carbon tax pay for it.

Suppose if a radical enough government got in it could be CPO’d to rewind.

_Brian

_Brian wrote: »

Rewinding would be fine if it came with lifetime guaranteed payments.
If they want to rewind land then it’s going to cost long term, can’t the carbon tax pay for it.

Suppose if a radical enough government got in it could be CPO’d to rewind.

The carbon tax was meant to pay for REPS mk2, which I heard today they're finding trouble locating the funding for.

Env/Herirage have funding for **** all.

Ag is already compromised by various vested interests.

CPO would cause war, again they also don't have the money.

They can't guarentee anything, much less life time payments.

Say my name

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The carbon tax was meant to pay for REPS mk2, which I heard today they're finding trouble locating the funding for.

Env/Herirage have funding for **** all.

Ag is already compromised by various vested interests.

CPO would cause war, again they also don't have the money.

They can't guarentee anything, much less life time payments.

It's all going pear shaped.

The forestry money was their way of tempting landowners off cap.
15 year payment and then the land has to stay in forestry for eternity.

Big business are already giving out carbon credits amongst themselves and in the real world not one iota of a piece of Carbon sequestered and stored.

Too many pluckers looking for some back to jump on and no doers.

Dinzee Conlee

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The carbon tax was meant to pay for REPS mk2, which I heard today they're finding trouble locating the funding for.

Env/Herirage have funding for **** all.

Ag is already compromised by various vested interests.

CPO would cause war, again they also don't have the money.

They can't guarentee anything, much less life time payments.

Is the carbon tax going into the overall pot now
Was it meant to be ring-fenced for carbon offsetting payments?

_Brian

Deleted User wrote: »

The carbon tax was meant to pay for REPS mk2, which I heard today they're finding trouble locating the funding for.

Env/Herirage have funding for **** all.

Ag is already compromised by various vested interests.

CPO would cause war, again they also don't have the money.

They can't guarentee anything, much less life time payments.

I suppose this week missed an opportunity for cap funding to be redirected away from just direct payments because of historical actions and move it towards actions supporting biodiversity and environment.

It’s long overdue.

Panch18

_Brian wrote: »

I suppose this week missed an opportunity for cap funding to be redirected away from just direct payments because of historical actions and move it towards actions supporting biodiversity and environment.

It’s long overdue.

Hasn’t 30% of the Cap been redirected to supporting biodiversity and the environment? How is that a missed opportunity?

grassroot1

Panch18 wrote: »

Hasn’t 30% of the Cap been redirected to supporting biodiversity and the environment? How is that a missed opportunity?

It is a missed opertunity because you are as a farmer are being asked to deliver enviromental benefits and biodiversity targets for not one single euro more than you were getting previously.
1.No allowance for extra cost
2.No allowance for lower stocking rate
3.No extra fiancial benefit for providing enviromental gains for the common good

Say my name

Say my name wrote: »

It's all going pear shaped.

The forestry money was their way of tempting landowners off cap.
15 year payment and then the land has to stay in forestry for eternity.

Big business are already giving out carbon credits amongst themselves and in the real world not one iota of a piece of Carbon sequestered and stored.

Too many pluckers looking for some back to jump on and no doers.

I think a lot is "how do we be seen to be doing something without doing anything".

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Is the carbon tax going into the overall pot now
Was it meant to be ring-fenced for carbon offsetting payments?

Not sure where it was to come from, but the info I heard came from someone who should know. Many's the slip between the cup and the lip, but as of today that's how they had the scene.

_Brian wrote: »

I suppose this week missed an opportunity for cap funding to be redirected away from just direct payments because of historical actions and move it towards actions supporting biodiversity and environment.

It’s long overdue.

TBH that's going into a subject I'm not sure I want to delve into. Personally I have bigger problems that CAP at the present. But on CAP & Env policy I hold serious misgivings on motives. We see in particular The Guardian spreading information of a certain hue as they're bankrolled by the Open Philanthropy Project (just check any of their "animal farmed" series and it *now* openly states that). People involved in OPP have interests in Impossible Meat among other things. We have the good folks at Davos (World Economic Forum), always concerned with us the little folks, now wanting 50% protected areas by 2050.

I smell a big stinky rat.

And I believe at the heart of it is reducing peoples options in how and where they live and what they must spend their money on, rather than any goodwill towards the environment.

_Brian

Panch18 wrote: »

Hasn’t 30% of the Cap been redirected to supporting biodiversity and the environment? How is that a missed opportunity?

Because it’s not 50/60/80% or even 100%

Do we need tax payers money going out to farms based on activity from decades ago when it could/should be going to support biodiversity development

Panch18

_Brian wrote: »

Because it’s not 50/60/80% or even 100%

Do we need tax payers money going out to farms based on activity from decades ago when it could/should be going to support biodiversity development

That’s insane

_Brian

Panch18 wrote: »

That’s insane

Why ??

We need less beef production for example.
Over time it’s become a completely devalued product, it’s become a mere commodity.

Part of the problem is direct payments supporting farms to continue producing it at a loss. Without the payments production would fall and it would regain its true value. Yea there would be less people farming beef but at least the would have an opportunity to make an actual profit on their animals.

CAP has become about keeping farms producing below cost raw materials to feed into industry where vast fortunes is made on it, that’s the actual insanity

wrangler

Panch18 wrote: »

That’s insane

Yea, my farm animals will be the only species I'll be looking after , and my land will be the only ecosystem I'll be minding.
Anything else is not what I went into farming for, however if I get as well paid as the last twenty years......
There's no way the next twenty years will be as good subsidy wise as the last twenty

_Brian

_Brian wrote: »

Without the payments production would fall

If you look around the internet at different models of farming, it's often the case without using chemical fertiliser that production can actually rise.

alps

_Brian wrote: »

Why ??

We need less beef production for example.
Over time it’s become a completely devalued product, it’s become a mere commodity.

Part of the problem is direct payments supporting farms to continue producing it at a loss. Without the payments production would fall and it would regain its true value. Yea there would be less people farming beef but at least the would have an opportunity to make an actual profit on their animals.

CAP has become about keeping farms producing below cost raw materials to feed into industry where vast fortunes is made on it, that’s the actual insanity

The payment has nothing to do with production Brian. It is unfortunately now the main drawings source on many farms and they cannot do without it.

The concept of environment schemes is fine, except that the farmer will be expected to pay for the environment scheme out of the BP...

Fair enough, pay the farmer for setting up and maintaining an environmental project on farm, but pay for the capital, input and running costs of it separately...

zf0wqv9oemuasj

_Brian wrote: »

Because it’s not 50/60/80% or even 100%

Do we need tax payers money going out to farms based on activity from decades ago when it could/should be going to support biodiversity development

I would strong disagree with even 30% going to these schemes, they are a con. Farmers should be farming.

_Brian

Nadia Unsightly Fiddle wrote: »

I would strong disagree with even 30% going to these schemes, they are a con. Farmers should be farming.

Collecting direct payments isn’t really farming though.
The levels of beef and dairy being produced isn’t about food security which was the purpose of CAP. Now it’s about making obscene profit for industry while farms get the crumbs or worse make a loss and expect tax payers money to supplement them.