Dairy Chitchat 4, an udder new thread.

yosemitesam1

Mooooo wrote: »

That's enforcement of existing rules, nobody is arguing for closed period spreading anymore and a different issue. My point was LESS, protected urea etc all other tools we are using are being ignored which is why I asked what else should we be doing? Even looking for fairness in treatment with regard to carbon capture is being brushed away.

The likes of less and protectrd urea are just doing something a littlr less worse.
Actually reduce amount of fert applied, have extra storage to give breathing space in spring, plant more than just straight ryegrass. Do something positive for biodiversity.
Reducing fert and increasing species in the sward need a bit of trial and error to find what suits you, so where better to actually do that then on your farm...
When buying grass seed, why not do a small area of something different? Why not try cutting back fert on an area? Its not rocket science but it's very rare to see people trying things like that.

richie123

Mooooo wrote: »

That's enforcement of existing rules, nobody is arguing for closed period spreading anymore and a different issue. My point was LESS, protected urea etc all other tools we are using are being ignored which is why I asked what else should we be doing? Even looking for fairness in treatment with regard to carbon capture is being brushed away.

Theres still people on here arguing for spreading when conditions are good in closed period.
Agree with you regards less and urea..and carbon capture...more needs to be done to highlight that

atlantic mist

lots of people talking about carbon......and this leads to more talk of carbon credits.....when do we start trading these credits financially (that they have been trying to establish/make for the past 20 years) and stop this enviroment talk its confusing me

Mooooo

atlantic mist wrote: »

lots of people talking about carbon......and this leads to more talk of carbon credits.....when do we start trading these credits financially (that they have been trying to establish/make for the past 20 years) and stop this enviroment talk its confusing me

They country will trade these carbon credits from land we farm while we'll be bent over getting carbon taxed at the same time...

roosterman71

Mooooo wrote: »

They country will trade these carbon credits from land we farm while we'll be bent over getting carbon taxed at the same time...

Carbon tax. Another money making load of cock. Since they were brought in, our carbon output has increased. So the solution - TAX MORE.

Timmaay

charolais0153 wrote: »

I was working for a pig fella there a while ago, he has 32 weeks storage, 32! . God forbid lads have a bit more storage to take them past the 13th of January.
Some nutrients used in January , not all, night and day between fields that got it in march and Jan .

In general the current rules probably aren't a million miles out in terms of storage weeks etc, however poor yard design's and inadequate rain water diversion sees far too much rainwater making it into tanks in my view, I'm certainly guilty of it here, I get caught out the odd time when one single storm might add a foot of water to the tank, that alongside outdoor concrete areas which really shouldn't be used during the winter, and you get too much runoff. I'm eyeing up a large enough drainage job around the shed here this summer which should solve a fair few problems I have. Other thing's that make a big big difference are closing off the runoff from silage slabs (I got stung with that last year, it added about 2foot into the tank in Oct before I realised it). Its not just about lobbing in extra massive tanks, be smarter about what you have already and ask the question if you have your 16/18wks that the calculations say is enough but still getting badly stuck most years.

minerleague

Timmaay wrote: »

In general the current rules probably aren't a million miles out in terms of storage weeks etc, however poor yard design's and inadequate rain water diversion sees far too much rainwater making it into tanks in my view, I'm certainly guilty of it here, I get caught out the odd time when one single storm might add a foot of water to the tank, that alongside outdoor concrete areas which really shouldn't be used during the winter, and you get too much runoff. I'm eyeing up a large enough drainage job around the shed here this summer which should solve a fair few problems I have. Other thing's that make a big big difference are closing off the runoff from silage slabs (I got stung with that last year, it added about 2foot into the tank in Oct before I realised it). Its not just about lobbing in extra massive tanks, be smarter about what you have already and ask the question if you have your 16/18wks that the calculations say is enough but still getting badly stuck most years.

Came across video from Scottish farm advisory service " Managing water on the steading" dealing with semi dirty water around farmyards. (Thinking of putting in some form of settlement pond for runoff from yard.) 2nd farmer in this had swale ( wide drain ) with heaps of gravel at regular intervals to trap sediment. Looked simple and easy to construct

Castlekeeper

There's a couple of misunderstandings, mentioned here, that come up regularly when the environmental topics kick off.
One is "double counting" carbon emissions ie food exports and oil imports all counted here. They're not double counted, their are just counted once, where the emissions occur.
Another is the notion of carbon sequestration. Unless one has a verified system of recording increases in soil carbon through the profile over a time period, no such claim can be made.
In many, even most cases, it may be found that carbon levels are declining, adding to farming woes, hence the reluctance of the Dept of Ag and the EPA to go there when questioned on the matter.
Also, I've heard experts discuss inconsistencies and different interpretations of carbon figures with different sampling and analysis methods to the extent that it's far from easily established.
In my limited experience, heavily N fertilised PRG swards do not build soil carbon levels, rather, they diminish them.

timple23

atlantic mist wrote: »

lots of people talking about carbon......and this leads to more talk of carbon credits.....when do we start trading these credits financially (that they have been trying to establish/make for the past 20 years) and stop this enviroment talk its confusing me

I think its unfair that companies can just buy carbon credits. Its like someone saying they don't own a car anymore, but take a taxi everywhere.

I'm all for trying to be more sustainable and environmentally friendly but I feel its pointless when Companies are being given a scapegoat of buying carbon credits rather than reducing planned obsolescence and their own emissions.

Mooooo

Castlekeeper wrote: »

There's a couple of misunderstandings, mentioned here, that come up regularly when the environmental topics kick off.
One is "double counting" carbon emissions ie food exports and oil imports all counted here. They're not double counted, their are just counted once, where the emissions occur.
Another is the notion of carbon sequestration. Unless one has a verified system of recording increases in soil carbon through the profile over a time period, no such claim can be made.
In many, even most cases, it may be found that carbon levels are declining, adding to farming woes, hence the reluctance of the Dept of Ag and the EPA to go there when questioned on the matter.
Also, I've heard experts discuss inconsistencies and different interpretations of carbon figures with different sampling and analysis methods to the extent that it's far from easily established.
In my limited experience, heavily N fertilised PRG swards do not build soil carbon levels, rather, they diminish them.

Is there no method of counting even the CO2 used in photosynthesis per x amount of tonnes of grass grown?

Timmaay

timple23 wrote: »

I'm all for trying to be more sustainable and environmentally friendly but I feel its pointless when Companies are being given a scapegoat of buying carbon credits rather than reducing planned obsolescence and their own emissions.

Assuming the carbon credits result in a nett overall reduction, then what's the difference?? Carbon credits are a very useful economic solution, if you cant directly reduce your emissions then you'll pay for it, which hurts your bottom line, end result companies with low carbon get an advantage over more polluting companies. And I don't really buy the argument that its pointless, that really is quite a nihilistic outlook on everything, the carbon problem isn't going to be solved by the world suddenly grinding to a halt now and the likes of individuals feeling good about not driving a slightly more polluting car etc, we both need better measurement and modeling of the whole climate change problem, alongside technologies that remove pollutants from the atmosphere, perhaps carbon credits will help that next breakthrough happen sooner.

Mooooo

Timmaay wrote: »

Assuming the carbon credits result in a nett overall reduction, then what's the difference?? Carbon credits are a very useful economic solution, if you cant directly reduce your emissions then you'll pay for it, which hurts your bottom line, end result companies with low carbon get an advantage over more polluting companies. And I don't really buy the argument that its pointless, that really is quite a nihilistic outlook on everything, the carbon problem isn't going to be solved by the world suddenly grinding to a halt now and the likes of individuals feeling good about not driving a slightly more polluting car etc, we both need better measurement and modeling of the whole climate change problem, alongside technologies that remove pollutants from the atmosphere, perhaps carbon credits will help that next breakthrough happen sooner.

Risk is any benefit will be whipped around by a financial product it'l be wrapped up in as well as hitting the poorer parts of society harder

green daries

Castlekeeper wrote: »

There's a couple of misunderstandings, mentioned here, that come up regularly when the environmental topics kick off.
One is "double counting" carbon emissions ie food exports and oil imports all counted here. They're not double counted, their are just counted once, where the emissions occur.
Another is the notion of carbon sequestration. Unless one has a verified system of recording increases in soil carbon through the profile over a time period, no such claim can be made.
In many, even most cases, it may be found that carbon levels are declining, adding to farming woes, hence the reluctance of the Dept of Ag and the EPA to go there when questioned on the matter.
Also, I've heard experts discuss inconsistencies and different interpretations of carbon figures with different sampling and analysis methods to the extent that it's far from easily established.
In my limited experience, heavily N fertilised PRG swards do not build soil carbon levels, rather, they diminish them.

It's not a misunderstanding it is double accounting simples. No other way to explain it if it wasn't double accounting then Saudi Arabia would be one of the most polluting countries in the world

older by the day

Minister for finance was on the radio yesterday. There will be a two billion Euro short fall in tax intake the next few years, because of America changing their tax laws. He will make up 600 million thru carbon taxs. It's not what we're making its the costs that will drag this country down

yosemitesam1

Mooooo wrote: »

Is there no method of counting even the CO2 used in photosynthesis per x amount of tonnes of grass grown?

All that carbon is released back in a very short time. It's not permanent

Water John

Carbon storage can go down to 2 metres. Most systems measure only shallow as that would be more in line with current farm practices.
There is an article in Thursday's Farm Examiner by Stephen Cadogan. It'd fairly heavy going with figures but he does have the following from an EU Report;
'there is a generally positive soil picture in Ireland, with organic carbon content of 127g/kg (versus 47g in the EU).

I think the ballpark figure of what could be sequestered into the ground is about 4 ton per acre per year. If someone pays me enough to achieve that, I'll do the necessary. Interestingly, the only way that can be achieved is with grazing animals.

Mooooo

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

All that carbon is released back in a very short time. It's not permanent

As methane when cows digest it? The fact its taken in should it not be counted seeing as there are figures for everything thats emitted?

Water John

There would have to a be a carbon budget done and detailed soil analysis also.
Very large farm in Australia has sold its carbon credits, to Microsoft I think. Wasn't paid a lot but its a start.

Birdnuts

straight wrote: »

Within 48 hrs of rain? What country are you in? Contractors would be fairly busy on the dry day. Scientific advice says its best to spread on a damp overcast day. Cant believe some of the farmer bashing comments on here.

WTF?? So calling out poor slurry management is "farmer bashing"??

Castlekeeper

Mooooo wrote: »

Is there no method of counting even the CO2 used in photosynthesis per x amount of tonnes of grass grown?

Yes but unfortunately that's the nub of the anti livestock argument.
Sumply put, the plant absorbs CO2, which are coverted to carbohydrates, eg C6H12O4, which are eaten by the ruminant emitting methane, CH4.
Methane is between 30ish and 80 odd times more potent a greenhouse gas than an CO2, boq it only lasts for 10ish years, but then it just reverts to CO2 for another few hundred.
Atmospheric methane levels have more than doubled in the last 200 years, the main source increases are attributed to fossil fuels, paddy fields, and livestock.

Castlekeeper

green daries wrote: »

It's not a misunderstanding it is double accounting simples. No other way to explain it if it wasn't double accounting then Saudi Arabia would be one of the most polluting countries in the world

Pollutants are counted where they are emitted, hence they are called emissions. In the case of oil, a barrell of oil itself is not an atmospheric pollutant, neither is a carton of milk for that matter, but burn that oil and you will get carbon emissions, which are attributed on a location basis.
One may not agree with this system, but it's not counted twice, from what I can see.

green daries

Castlekeeper wrote: »

Pollutants are counted where they are emitted, hence they are called emissions. In the case of oil, a barrell of oil itself is not an atmospheric pollutant, neither is a carton of milk for that matter, but burn that oil and you will get carbon emissions, which are attributed on a location basis.
One may not agree with this system, but it's not counted twice, from what I can see.

Saudi is exporting oil it has no carbon footprint in Saudi Ireland exports food products produced extremely carbon efficiently in comparison to other countries but we have to absorb the carbon footprint for both the oil and the food products

Castlekeeper

green daries wrote: »

Saudi is exporting oil it has no carbon footprint in Saudi Ireland exports food products produced extremely carbon efficiently in comparison to other countries but we have to absorb the carbon footprint for both the oil and the food products

Look I'll leave this here, but all I'm explaining to you is, that the reason "we have to absorb the carbon footprint for both" is that it is here in Ireland that the pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere, not in Saudi Arabia.
We burn the oil here, we own the cows that emit the methane here, "simples"?
Now of course there can be loads of side debates about accounting systems, carbon cycling, comparative efficiencies etc. but as it stands, each kg of carbon emitted to the atmosphere is counted only once.

straight

Birdnuts wrote: »

WTF?? So calling out poor slurry management is "farmer bashing"??

Relax lad. There was several comments in succession calling out the big bad farmer.

straight

older by the day wrote: »

Minister for finance was on the radio yesterday. There will be a two billion Euro short fall in tax intake the next few years, because of America changing their tax laws. He will make up 600 million thru carbon taxs. It's not what we're making its the costs that will drag this country down

Do ye think the 12.5% rate for incorporated farmers will come under pressure

roosterman71

Castlekeeper wrote: »

Atmospheric methane levels have more than doubled in the last 200 years, the main source increases are attributed to fossil fuels, paddy fields, and livestock.

Livestock? Has the number of livestock doubled in that time? Lad we've always had livestock. Millions of them roaming. If anything I'd guess the livestock number in the world has gone down (just a feeling so maybe wrong).

What has gone bananas over the last couple of hundred years is us upright walking shaved monkeys who are hell bent on wrecking the place, but blaming someone else for it. There are too many people, and we're not capable of maintaining it without impacting our natural environment. We need to cull humans (and nature eventually will)

Say my name

minerleague wrote: »

Came across video from Scottish farm advisory service " Managing water on the steading" dealing with semi dirty water around farmyards. (Thinking of putting in some form of settlement pond for runoff from yard.) 2nd farmer in this had swale ( wide drain ) with heaps of gravel at regular intervals to trap sediment. Looked simple and easy to construct

That still wouldn't filter out nitrates. You could have clear water but high in nitrates.

You'd need a carbon trap to catch the nitrates. People are using woodchip, biochar.

FintanMcluskey

roosterman71 wrote: »

Livestock? Has the number of livestock doubled in that time? Lad we've always had livestock. Millions of them roaming. If anything I'd guess the livestock number in the world has gone down (just a feeling so maybe wrong).

What has gone bananas over the last couple of hundred years is us upright walking shaved monkeys who are hell bent on wrecking the place, but blaming someone else for it. There are too many people, and we're not capable of maintaining it without impacting our natural environment. We need to cull humans (and nature eventually will)

Livestock numbers are increasing each year, but only due to the demand of humans to eat meat of course, but I’ve no intention to change my diet anytime soon

https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#global-meat-production

Global meat production has increased rapidly over the past 50 years – as we see, total production has more than quadrupled since 1961. The chart shows global meat production by region, measured in tonnes.

Water John

Say my name wrote: »

That still wouldn't filter out nitrates. You could have clear water but high in nitrates.

You'd need a carbon trap to catch the nitrates. People are using woodchip, biochar.

Or a wetland.

green daries

Say my name wrote: »

That still wouldn't filter out nitrates. You could have clear water but high in nitrates.

You'd need a carbon trap to catch the nitrates. People are using woodchip, biochar.

Tell me more ther