EU Biodiversity strategy 2030

893bet

Was the recent soil sampling scheme a data gathering exercise on soil types that will now be used against at the farmer

alps

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980631#Comment_119980631

They'd have to give the results to the farmers for it to be any use to them.

Be interesting to throw in an FOI request to both Dept of Housing and Agri to see if they have the results..

893bet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980854#Comment_119980854

I got my results and it shows soil type on it also. Mineral or peat if I recall.

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119943677#Comment_119943677

Interesting...thank you for that!

alps

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119980958#Comment_119980958

Does it give a carbon content?

893bet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119981192#Comment_119981192

No. Just the basic ph and P K index’s

alps

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119981210#Comment_119981210

We got that bit...It's the "confidential" but I'd like to see😀

Jonnyc135

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119981860#Comment_119981860

Pure facting finding mission too seek out the peat soils that will need to be rewetted. This really will end up being a travesty for rural Ireland, It will decimate the place. Has anyone (farming organisations/ politicians) actually bothered to do this economic impact assessment on rural Ireland if this went ahead, I know it was proposed and back highly at their orieachtas meetings.

893bet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119982269#Comment_119982269

Maybe it won’t is the alternative view. You may be paid to not farm land that is marginal at best.

This puts money in farmers pockets without lining the meat industry pockets.

Now in my minds eye the land for rewetting is bad land. Maybe there is land there that has been very well drained a huge effort and I can see those farmers being pissed.

Jonnyc135

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119982730#Comment_119982730

That's of course what we would love to see happen, farmers actually get good pay for carbon farming, as carbon as a commodity itself down the line will become very lucrative. Unfortunately the EU wants to push farmers down this route whilst going down the line of flat payments for carbon farming per Ha, instead of letting us reap the real juice which is the carbon itself and sell it on a open free market, or use it to offset against their own emit.

They will not allow this as they do not want to allow farmers to be able to offset like every other company in the world is allowed do, instead they want to rob us of the CO2 we are sequestering, gift it to the member state in our case Ireland, so they can then use it to offset for themselves and guess what since the new LULUCF regulation passed through Europe, they can then sell on the excess CO2 at real time market value. We are getting screwed no matter what way you look at this.

Jonnyc135

Cean comhaile disallowed my parlimentary question on "If a farm was set up as a limited company, can the then offset CO2 emissions from privately owned and operated green energy produced on site, as well as CO2 stored and sequestered in privately owned forestry and peatland".

Denied on the grounds it was hypothecial, I since have taken out the reference to a farm and just asked them same using a limited company. If they answer No, then what Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Eli lilly and countless others have been doing over the last number of years is illegal and wrong and therefore in fact greenwashing and not carbon neutral.

I still feel I won't get an answer (but we know the answer has to be yes as all the said companies above are doing it) as my letter from McConalougue answered 2 out of my 3 questions, this one was intentionally not answered.

blue5000

This isn’t really about carbon IMHO, it’s about producing less food for the masses. The big corporations want to control people by controlling food.

Dutch farmers being cpo’d is the thin end of the wedge, it’s the most productive land in Europe, even despite all the N fertilizer they have to use to produce that food. I think their output per ha is 5 times what an average EU farm produces, so each ha they’re gone from farming is like taking 5 hectares of most of the rest of Europe.

We’re being ‘gently nudged’ along the path to producing less. The price of fertilizer, go organic, re-wetting, focusing on carbon is all part of making food scarce. They realise that they need a few really big dairy farms so that the masses will still have fresh milk to pour over their GM corn flakes in the morning. So the big dairy lads are still being encouraged to get bigger.

Anyway rant over, off to feed the few cattle I have left.

Jonnyc135

Director General for agriculture in the EU was in the oireachtas meeting last week. Only got a chance to watch on Friday it but it doesn't make for good viewing.

Typical political bullshit all soundbites about how great this will be for farming and bio diversity loss and how farmers won't be negatively effected. I honestly don't know how these people can so easily blatantly lie to everyone. Everybody on this thread knows what its really going to do to rural Ireland and couple that with Coilltes deal with Gresham House, rural Ireland will be dead in 15 years time.

Main points I got out of the meeting was:

1. EU has done a Europe wide impact assessment on how this will impact countries and are satisfied its minimal.

TDs pushed them to do economic assessments for each country and region individually but that was brushed off, we know the western sea board of Ireland will get severely affected economically and socioeconomically - but those w@nkers don't care.

2. No impact has been considered for housing, lands, Infrasturture located near by peatlands and the effect on them when re wetting or water table rising occurs - nor does the Director General think this is an issue, it can be dealt by the member state - but if the member state says no we can't re wet xx amount of peatland due to this then as its a legally binding target we will be fined. So total bullshit really.

3. No EU country has actually said NO, just a few like Ireland Sweeden Finland etc, that have raised issues against it.

All I can say is even if we cause a revolution and get Ireland to vote NO, on the laws of the 2/3 majority in Europe thanks to those bullshit treatys we all voted for were goosed anyway.

Really very depressing at this stage, the more you actually look at this crap that is going to drastically affect our lives the more down and depressed you get. Sick to the teeth of this crap at this stage. Sick to the teeth of the mainstream media pushing the anti farming brigade, Sick to the teeth of the EU and their mercoursor deal and selling out our food security to Brazil, because selling their energy dependency to Russia went so well. Sick of soundbite politicians who realistically have no real say in anything affecting us as we are governed by the EU and or multinationals that make the rule book to suit themselves at the detriment of everyone else.

Quite sad that's all the above is actual facts yet no mainstream media wants to talk about it - wonder why?

I think this is the link below, haven't yet depressed myself with it further - tonight maybe.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/video-archive/committees/7030

Director Rosa had a lot of handy outs. All comes down to the member state options, and even if it didn't Ireland has yet again committed to be best in class by having higher aspirations.

The definition of reweting is getting on my wick, it's not flooding, it's raising the water table. Michael Fitzmaurice had my thinking on that, you won't be walking stock on land that's in his kind word "moist". They'll poach the place to fcuk and back and Mr Farmer will be in breach of many other things I suspect.

green party TD, from Limerick CITY, spent his time attacking arterial drainage.

I thought the Chairman had an interesting question at the end. Whether the Director or the EU had thought about how the EU project will be viewed by the people this proposed legislation will affect. It got a rubbish answer in my view, but it's important that it was asked and should be asked more often. Since May 2020 I have said at any opportunity I'll vote against anything EU related, and I'm in favour of not being in the EU, as long as over-reaching types of legislation like this is alive.

Of course that will get negative responses like the Director gave, Ireland best boy in class is looking to do worse, and where will your money come from and the economy stupid. Sure, but as long as my neck is in a noose what does anyone expect?

Jonnyc135

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120161989#Comment_120161989

The economic impact assessment or rather lack of economic impact assessments for rural regions in which a lot of this re wetting has to take place simply has to be carried out. Our TDs must fight that these be carried out the simply are a necessity. By the going on of the DG they don't seem to care once they have their assessment that suits their agenda for the EU as a whole.

Much like the forestry dealings going on the TDs in government like Hackett and Mcconalogue can actually and have the right to stop the deal with coillte and Grisham house but are using the sound bite bullshit that the deal has already being done. They are cowards to the highest degree. They can instruct coillte not to put money into the fund, pull their tax payers money out of the fund as well as instruct any investors that want too put money into this forestry fund that's its "not the approach they want" their **** words and once the funds can't raise enough money nothing can be bought quite simple. Yet again notice how in most media outlets we are getting the soundbite "not the direction we want forestry to go" yet they are happy to do nothing about it why the christ won't they report that.

Base price

The article in the Farmers Journal regarding nitrates make for depressing reading. I'm normally upbeat about livestock farming but not so much after reading it.

https://www.farmersjournal.ie/nitrates-what-are-the-next-steps-746313

Water John

Wouldn't be so pessimistic. This only affects around 3,000 of the 18,000 dairy farms in the country and doesn't affect other enterprises at all.

Maybe some the very intensive farms relying on high inorganic nitrogen input need to look at other tools in the box. At worst its 52,000 cows out of 1,500,000 cows, 3.5 %. In fact over the years many dairy enterprises have expanded output whilst using less cows, with the use of genetics.

Similarly with tillage, the increased yields over the last 20 years have been about better seed not more nitrogen.

Mooooo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120202782#Comment_120202782

Banding will affect everyone. Those not in dero or looking to stay out of it would have to drop 12 cows in a 40ha farm. They could enter dero to maintain numbers if needed. A lot of the farms effected are also stocked at dero rates in order to improve or maintain viability so writing it off as only effecting a small amount of farmers isn't right either imo.

Say my name

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120202782#Comment_120202782

I've seen this argument before from non dairy farmers and organic farmers. The message is getting jumbled. This has nothing to do with how much inorganic N is being applied. It's lowering a stock farmers stocking rate of what they were able to do before. Whether conventional or organic. It's reducing what you could stock before at per acre. This coupled with the doing away of exporting manure brings more farms into dero which if they want to keep the same stock numbers and they are above the limit means they have to look for more land.

The reality from all the other pressures coming for land and increasing every year. Is it's a backhand way of reducing stock numbers.

Water John

I do understand the logic of what you both are saying.

alps

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120202782#Comment_120202782

That was the hope..

The reality is completly different.

The narrative whereby a farmer in the top band will have to reduce by 18 cows or secure 20 acres.

The 18 cows turn approx 60k.

20 acres at €500 costs 10k.

The choice is...do I drop the 60k or payout 10k and secure it?

Need ever even open the gate of the rented place...just stay doing what were always doing..

How many will that affect?

Base price

I just read this article from the Farmers Journal entitled "Factories want to cut beef farm emissions by 30%" according to MII. Unfortunately the article is subscriber only. The article goes on to say that MII aim to reduce scope one and two "intensity" emissions by more that 50% and reduce scope three "intensity" emissions by 30% by 2030. Apparently "scope one and two emissions are emitted by the processors themselves" (me wonders if it includes their own factory feedlots) - whilst "scope three are those in the whole supply chain such as farms" which I would like to know what they included in the calculations.

Over the years I've seen lots of waffle published about Irish livestock farming from MII and in later years more so on the interweb. I reckon this is the best I've read in a long time.

https://www.farmersjournal.ie/factories-want-to-cut-beef-farm-emissions-by-30-748522

Jonnyc135

Eammon Ryan talking the same gibberish again at the Climate action plan committee yesterday. Saying 80,000ha has to be rewet in order to store carbon. He was emphasizing the new carbon farming proposals and how farmers will have to be financially rewarded for it. My Local TD in North west (how was an MEP also) sent me on a copy of the draft carbon farming proposal from the EU and according to her the carbon farming proposal is dismal. Reading it myself its worse than dismal, and offers absolutely no financial gain to the farmer. Remember when land is rewetted it will be changed in the LULUCF much like forestry is. The big major difference is forestry has commercial timber value therefore the land value will track the wholesale commercial timber value. When you rewet land, the value of the land is now worthless as it tracks no commodity price or has no other potential value as it will be designated 'rewet' in the LULUCF. If this was to be implemented the price of carbon storage by the land would have to be linked to the land and therefore give the land a value.

In business sense what they are asking is exactly the same as if a multinational company listed on the NYSE was forced by the EU and their member states to drastically reduce their operating revenue by 80% and devalue their net asset value to being worthless. If this ever happened to a listed multinational company before the end of the week between share selloffs, investors pulling money and the fact that overnight their asset value is worthless, the company would be bankrupt within a week. The reason for this is the whole business model will be destroyed in terms of revenue and asset value - This is what they are going to do to the western seaboard of Ireland.

They're a f$$king disgrace, Eammon and a lot of his coalition parties coming out backing this (just to suck up to the EU) to the hilt with his sound bites that will be published on mainstream media saying farmers will be greatly financially incentivized. Its absolute lies, all all to ensure Irelands total land area stores more carbon than it emits, yet Ireland doesn't own 80% of the land it proposes to rewet or is it anyway entitled to the carbon that the land stores, its just a reporting bull$hit check for the UN and the EU. A sell out to the highest degree.

Water John

Reading Gillian O'Sullivan in the Irish Indo. she casts doubt on the P and K results from the free sampling. Fields that were 1 last year coming back as 3 & 4. Not good enough, We'd all like to depend on independent and fair science as a measure.

Farmers should have the right to trade carbon sequestered, no question. If that was allowed at market price then farmers will adjust to take on that income stream. This would change the whole situation.

Jonnyc135

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120251609#Comment_120251609

The storage value of carbon in terms of bogland has to be associated with the land. This will never happen as it will imply ownership of carbon sequestered and stored, yet multinational companies can do it on the European Emmissions trading Scheme.

Them free soil samples were a fact finding mission to get a more accurate estimate of peat soils simple as that - a lot of people saying them samples gave false results.

Water John

Grassland could store up to about 4 ton/acre. If you only managed half and the price in a few years is €100/tonne then the sequestration would yield an income twice that of going organic.

Unless carbon is measured to at least one metre and possible two metres in depth, 30cm is a waste of time and resources.

Jonnyc135

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120251775#Comment_120251775

Price is already over €100/ton now, last EU ETS auction in December 22 it was at €105/ton. Sadly it will never happen as the EU globalistic agenda wants that carbon for itself (steal it) so big business can keep the 'GDP' going, whilst destroying small scale farming in exchange for large scale corporate farming and importing from south America, that's why they have that disastrous mercursor deal done.

Big business lobbyists runs the EU and the US.

Say my name

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120251775#Comment_120251775

All soils really have carbon stored all the way down and compressed in bedrock. When you start to think of it that way the whole thing seems rudimentary.

I was trying to get a picture of Plaggen man made dark soil in Holland overformed by mineral soil of modern farming.

This was the closest I got in a few minutes of looking.

alps

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120252128#Comment_120252128

Farmers can surely turn out to fight that....but will they?