Better cows here than on cleared rainforest

spontindeed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119395195#Comment_119395195

Speaking of wildfires, Dubai is making its own rain Drones that will give clouds an electrical charge to create rainfall. Rainmaking technology is known as "Cloud Seeding".

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119395195#Comment_119395195

Brazil is not going to increase the size of their herd if there isnt the demand to make it worthwhile.

When Ireland cuts its herd, all of a sudden we have less global supply but demand remains the same, so now Brazilians have incentive to increase herd numbers. They will not increase regardless, the global beef market is a market like any other and obeys the rules of supply and demand.

Most "wildfires" in Ireland are caused by farmers burning gorse and it gets out of control, infact most wildfires globally are caused by arson, not nature. As for flooding, poor drainage practices and windfarms disturbing mountain drainage patterns has a significant impact in the severity of flooding events too. Regardless, its not the point of this thread. The point is that people want beef, after herd is cut they will still want beef. Brazil is more than happy to cut more rainforest to grow this beef.

bb12

more psy-ops and most people are falling for it...there's been a particular agenda to blame the "dirty filthy farmers" over the past few years for all things bad in the climate.. it's just beyond comprehension and everyone going along with it....like...blaming farmers! the only actual people in the country who actually know anything about nature!!

yet not one word about "dirty filthy corporations" or "dirty filthy people" leaving tons of plastic behind in parks/ beaches...endless and constantly increasing consumption of everything plastic and then hopping on all those flights .

yeah it's all the farmers fault!

i think a bit of hunger might be the trick needed here to set people straight again

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119394175#Comment_119394175

Can you explain how taking beef animals to the factory earlier would mitigate the situation?

As a beef farmer who has produced beef with as little inputs as possible over decades I have thought long and hard about reduced age limits and I've come to the conclusion that not only would it not mitigate the situation, it would exacerbate it and reduce my income....

I am very interested in having it explained to me and the counterpoints I intend to make thoroughly debunked...

I've been looking forward to someone proving me wrong for sometime now....

Sam Russell

@amacca

If you want to know how to mitigate emissions, check out teagasc.ie because they have done the research and know the answers.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119395589#Comment_119395589

Completely agree.

I've a very diverse species mix in much of my paddocks.

The idea that going to a finish at 24 months system is compatible with the above and your system.. There is no point even trying to explain it to people advocating it. It is like saying people with a broken laptop just need to get the correct wrench, it gives it away.

The choice will be high intensity, high artificial and external input or out under that system.

Sam Russell

Teagasc have done a lot of research on reducing emissions.

Change of sward from rye grass to a mix of grasses to include clovers and deeper rooting varieties. This cuts down on fertilizer, and reduces run-off to water courses and into groundwater, and better drainage, and better soil structure.

Better breeding to take advantage of the above, together with tighter management of inputs. It is increased intensity of farming that causes the high emissions.

Farmers will need to change their ways, but already have in the past and can do so again to their benefit and the environment. There are always better ways to do things. The change from horse to tractor, from hay to silage, from taking the milk to creamery daily to the bulk tank collected every other day - all these changes have happened and no-one would go back.

Growing their own potatoes and vegetables to buying them all i the supermarket - is a change that should be reversed. Not all changes are good for the environment. Farmers need to open their minds.

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119396161#Comment_119396161

I believe reduced age limits means increased intensity /intensification....I really can't see how it would mean anything else .....more heads/quicker turnover/more inputs/more emissions........

The animal themselves that I've been working with for close on 40 years now do not put on weight naturally until they get to about 26 months, but a large proportion are fit on minimum inputs and grass at about 2/3 months after that

Age limits are not environmentally friendly no matter how I cut it......they are merchant and industry friendly at my expense however

As for Teagasc research.....would this be the same Teagasc that had one of its head honchos recently admitting they didn't factor in the increased number of male calves into the recent dairy expansion?? I've read a number of articles one of their main beef guys has published in the IFJ and I remain deeply unconvinced, not a single shred of convincing evidence that lowering the age of slaughter or "efficiency" as they call it will reduce GHGs never mind not drive the small sustainable producer out of business .....

I'll happily read any article or link you suggest that proves lower age limits will reduce GHG emissions from the beef herd in Ireland here.......afaics it will push further intensification and inputs..........

I think the reasoning used to suggest it will reduce GHG emissions to be deeply flawed if not deliberately misleading but tbh I've not seen any explicit description or explanation of how lowering age limits would reduce GHGs so its quite difficult to counter it, I'm only surmising what the justifications might be such is the lack of a coherent explanation/information on the idea..........perhaps I'm just too thick to understand

In any event, I'm not here to insist I'm correct at all costs. If someone can explain it to me or prove it etc I'll happily admit I'm wrong. .....

Until that happens I think I'll keep challenging anyone that blithely suggests lower age limits are any kind of solution to provide some sort of proof or backup for such a statement.

893bet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119394509#Comment_119394509

Where the research to show intensive shed rear are less damaging than extensive?

I call bullshit.

sure they grow faster but that’s against all the carbon waste growing all the grain the eat, making and drawing all the silage and stray to feed them daily, drawing and spreading away all the shite they produce etc.

Orion402

Ireland has a beautiful maritime climate due to its close proximity to the Atlantic among other things which give us our grasslands and some of the best beef in the world. Killing all the cows wouldn't change Ireland's maritime climate, but then again, when has common sense entered the minds of men recently. All these serious politicians and farm officials arguing over what effectively are dire conclusions generated by computer gamers who cobbled together a remarkably crude set of assertions that humanity can control the weather/temperatures by doing or not doing something.

Every now and again a society runs with an academic bandwagon where politicians and media project imperatives that they must act on behalf of their nation and future generations to improve society. The last time that happened was the mid 19th century when the Nazis ran with the academic doctrine of natural selection where invasion and extermination was absolutely necessary for the survival of their society-

"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world." Charles Darwin 1881

" Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labour in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as the seed of a new Jewish revival" Wannsee Conference, 1942

Now it is our turn in the 21st century to face an academic doctrine which demands that humanity change the weather/temperatures. If there is a more stupid notion out there presently, I haven't seen it.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119396161#Comment_119396161

They have but how is that compatible with 24 month beef.

An awful lot of beef farms have been at what you describe since time immemorial, most in the last 20 years and an awful lot more in the last 6 months.

All out the window with 24 month beef.

Ultimately the problem is that no one in Europe wants to pay for the production of their food, they certainly have no interest in it being organic, no interest in sustainability etc etc. Whether beef, dairy,fruit,veg pulse etc etc. That doesn't change.

They want it produced below cost, and if they can't continue to do that here, they'll get it imported from outside of Europe where they won't be inconvenienced by regulations, environmental protection, people who want more than a dollar an hour and where 5 times the Fertilizer rate is common compared to Western Europe, we are well below the Western European average.

Just to be clear the above are people who tend to Vote green, are concerned about climate, biodiversity etc. The picture is bleaker outside of that demographic.

Markus Antonius

Does anyone actually believe this charade of 22-30% "negotiations" going on between the party leaders?

It's nothing but a sham debate to get people to swallow this arbitrary 22% figure that will lead to an unprecedented cost to farmers and taxpayers

beachhead

As 1st post says - don't worry about what happens globally.Whether Brazil wants to sell/clear the entire Amazon(it possesses the majority of it),that other nations want to kill everything that walks,swims.We have to do our bit.Our tiny little splat of a gnat's bite nation in all the world.

dePeatrick

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119397203#Comment_119397203

Yes but is that just virtue signalling?

beachhead

It works on boards

El Tarangu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119396424#Comment_119396424

Unhinged...

Orion402

The last academic doctrine that escaped into political/social society was Victorian natural selection and the belief that some nations are more evolved than other cultures with the imperative to invade and exterminate those considered inferior. It isn't rocket science and obviously the lessons have not been learned as what is effectively a races/racism doctrine given a formal biological stamp of approval-

" On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" Charles Darwin, 1859

A less favoured 'race' looks like this-

" Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts- and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal 'struggle for existence,' it would be the inferior and less Favoured Race that had prevailed- and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults and narrower brain. " Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871

I couldn't care less what people call me, this is history with all the awful consequences of people not reasoning clearly and with discipline. The Holocaust really happened and an academic doctrine of natural selection was behind it-

“Truly, this earth is a trophy cup for the industrious man. And this rightly so, in the service of natural selection. He who does not possess the force to secure his Lebensraum in this world, and, if necessary, to enlarge it, does not deserve to possess the necessities of life. He must step aside and allow stronger peoples to pass him by.” Adolf Hitler

A society that is driven entirely stupid by what is effectively computer gaming by a bunch of academics living in a fantasy world is hardly civilised. It is not good for any nation and especially a society that exists on an island with a maritime climate that isn't going to change.

1.5 million animals here must be slaughtered

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/29/irish-farmers-cull-cows-meet-climate-targets

Note the bullshit of John Sweeney "John Sweeney, a climate expert at Maynooth University, is skeptical. “Various tried and untried methods have been advanced to suggest compliance with the 25% emissions ceiling.” They were insufficient, he said. “Only a reduction in numbers can achieve the targets in the short term.”

Sweeney estimates Ireland will need to reduce its number of cattle by 1 million by 2030. “The use of emotive words like ‘cull’ is unhelpful and inflames a process which can be managed in a more gradual manner,” he said."

Definition of cull

 (Entry 1 of 2)

transitive verb

1 : to select from a group : choose culled the best passages from the poet's work Damaged fruits are culled before the produce is shipped.

2 : to reduce or control the size of (something, such as a herd) by removal (as by hunting or slaughter) of especially weak or sick individuals The town issued hunting licenses in order to cull the deer population. culling a herd of cattle also : to hunt or kill (individuals) for culling culling diseased cows culled hundreds of deer

Sam Russell

If beef animals went to slaughter earlier, say at 20 months rather than 24 months, that would equate to a 17% reduction in numbers.

I do not know the actual averages of animals going for slaughter, but reducing that would be the same as reducing the herd. Now the animals are obviously smaller, but I doubt that they would be 17% smaller, but I would welcome a clear answer on that. They obviously consume less fodder over their shorter time as well, which could be covered by less nitrogen on the land or less winter feed.

Farmers are brilliant at adapting to adverse circumstances.

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119564429#Comment_119564429

I personally think that would be completely counterproductive if it happened

Here is why I think that.....Production of beef is at its core a simple game......put as many kilos of beef as you can on a carcass

If you reduce slaughter age either by rule or incentive it will incentivise the feeding of more and more concentrates to get the carcass to suitable slaughter weight.....

Fine I hear you say....but that means farmer is increasingly dependant on inputs....concentrated feed + production of v high quality silage (so diesel, plastic, contractor etc).....not good for environment

If that doesnt happen and a beef farmer can't get the carcass to suitable weights they will be paid less by processor for less kgs of meat so will then have to carry more animals to compensate => more animals not less

The single most myopic suggestion I have seen regarding reducing the herd for environmental reasons is lower slaughter age and incredibly imho its seems to be gaining traction....

It's not good for the farmer, its not good for the environment....it is good for industry and making slaves of yhe farmer however.......shades of the chicken industry in the US about it tbh

Consider for a moment what increasing the slaughter age and letting an animal come fit naturally would do to numbers

If a herd reduction is required....increase the slaughter age to 36 months or over....less animals on farms (as the landbase can only sustain do many) less inputs as they come fit naturally and better prices for yhe produce as there is less of it and its better quality (more marbelling etc)....as with a lot of things letting things happen naturally and not forcing will be the best route....forcing or incentivising reduced slaughter ages won't reduce GHGs or benefit the environment

Any move to reduce GHGs by decreasing slaughter age will achieve the opposite, either more heads or more turnover of stock or both.....its a deeply counterproductive industry led thimblerig imo

And to see the amount of people on board with the idea simply down to reading numbers without considering the impact on the ground is deeply depressing......of course a lot of them work for the various vested interests and are seemingly unable to respond to a straight question regarding this idea (I say this from experience)

Sam Russell

@Amacca I think you must have missed the lesson learned from mad cow disease, and the reduction of slaughter age as a way to combat it.

I think the whole beef business has moved on since then - and will move some more to combat emissions. Earlier slaughter age is just one change. Reduction of concentrates will be another. Changes to the spreading of slurry is another. Changes to the sward to give a broader variety of plants so that less nitrogen will be needed - perhaps eradicated all together. Lots of changes - many reducing costs to the producer.

Those small beef producers that lose money and require CAP subsidies should be persuaded to retire.

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119569344#Comment_119569344

OK...explain clearly how reducing slaughter age will reduce numbers or indeed emissions and benefit the environment....never mind the farmer......its working against nature. I've raised beef for nearly 40 years now, animals come fit and put on weight naturally from about the 26 month mark....

As far as I can see increasing slaughter age in tandem with reducing inputs etc as described above is the way to go if people are serious about benefiting the environment and making beef farming sustainable for farm families and not just large intensive semi feedlot style producers.....

I've posed the question many times to advocates of reducing slaughter age and ultimately they were unable to produce anything like a satisfactory answer.......

Some hadn't even thought of ramifications or didn't care because it suited.....reminded me of teagasc etc going full steam ahead into dairy expansion with seemingly not an iota of care or thought to what their advice would do to the quality of male dairy calves (an issue that will eventually blow up in everyone's faces)....

Or foodharvest 2020.........who was that good for ultimately....

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119563858#Comment_119563858

if it's to happen by 2030, no culling would be required. you'd simply breed fewer cattle and the numbers would reduce.

i.e. no one is suggesting that we reduce the national herd by 1.5m tomorrow.

magicbastarder

anyway, speaking of rainforest, we've removed a hell of a lot of ours and are gaining very little for it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rayofoghlu/status/1565449791009689600

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119569895#Comment_119569895

What are you advocating here....

When was the "rainforest" removed...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119569894#Comment_119569894

Why not introduce wolf, bear and lynx as some idiots are suggesting? That should reduce the numbers pretty fast and curtail those gases.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119569838#Comment_119569838

OK, the current way dairy farmers breed cattle is predominately to bring cows into milking, and provide replacement heifers. The male dairy calf is not really useful for much - in particular the likes of Guernsey ones - great creamy milk from the cow, but scraggy bulls. That needs to change so the male calf is good for beef.

Research needs to be done on all aspects of dairy and beef production to get the best results for both. Intensive production of dairy is not really sustainable, and intensive beef production is also not sustainable - or at least the way it happens now.

Sending animals for slaughter will reduce numbers because they are on the land for shorter time - assuming the numbers are not increased to compensate. Reducing nitrogen by using better sward that fix nitrogen (e.g. using clover) will cut input costs with no loss of fodder (well according to some who have done this). Cutting concentrates should also reduce inputs, and could increase margins if the animals do not lose thrive if the sward mix compensates.

At the end of the day, if the return to the farmer stays the same, the that is all that matters. Current production is not profitable for many and only for the CAP, farmers would be out of business. Clearly, there is little time to sort this.

All these actions and their result depends on each farm's circumstances, like land quality, and the efforts and investments needed to achieve these results.

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119570503#Comment_119570503

Assuming numbers wont be increased to compensate is quite the assumption....

Assuming farmers won't decide or be effectively forced to horse in the concentrates to get already poor potential dairy x animals fit for slaughter at or under 20 months ....or that family farms won't get forced out in favour of much larger scale intensive operators that can do this is one hell of an assumption too if you don't mind me saying.....

If those are the assumptions this modelling exercise is based on I'd respectfully suggest the assumptions are re-examined and another iteration attempted......

If less intensive or more extensive beef production is the goal then the slaughter age needs to be increased not decreased imo....

Think very carefully about the ramifications of slaughter ages around 20 months or even 26 months and I'll be surprised if you don't end up agreeing with me as from any of your posts Ive read to date you seem like an intelligent poster.....reducing slaughter age does not benefit the family farm/small scale producer and it sure as hell won't benefit the environment imo....

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119570397#Comment_119570397

Probably in the last couple of hundred or thousand years. And it's not rainforest in inverted commas.

And I'm advocating that Irish farming overall cannot claim to be universally efficient. The example above is 250 acres that would be far better suited to allowing woodland (or whatever climax vegetation would establish there) than to produce less money than would pay for a 20 a day cigarette habit.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119570637#Comment_119570637

I am not an agricultural economist, but I do wish to see the current climate change halted and possibly reversed. My house is close to sea level close to the sea.

Farmers get a poor deal because of the way prices are manipulated by supermarkets and meat factories. That needs to change. We can agree on that.

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119570903#Comment_119570903

100%

I don't believe reducing slaughter age will achieve that or benefit the environment/reduce GHGs however....a point worth repeating often afaic.

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119570653#Comment_119570653

I was under the impression you said something along the lines of .... speaking of rainforest weve removed a hell of a lot of ours?

I've stood in parts of the amazon rainforest and native irish woodland (what small sections are left) and although both were magnificent they werent comparable imho.....Id argue the inverted commas should definitely stay.

Regarding Irish farming not being universally efficient...I think I understand what you mean by efficient but you should be aware when any of the advisory bodies/powers that be have spoken about efficiency in the past they almost invariably mean efficiency in terms of output to the detriment of the farmer.

That 250 acres could be put to better use if and its a big if....... the owner is rewarded properly to do so and doesn't have the future use of the land taken out of his or perhaps his families (if he has one) hands in perpetuity effectively.

My issue with a lot of the schemes and decrees from "above" is they are frequently poorly thought out, benefit vested interests and in some cases make little sense beyond being hoops to jump through.....some appear to even be destructive to the environment.

Take the latest acres scheme....theres a measure in that called coppicing which pays per metre.....unless I was misinformed (and the info was from agri consultants) ...coppicing as defined by the scheme is to take a hedge and cut it to the butt, then fence it off to let it grow back thicker......if the hedge is already thick or high and providing a perfectly fine habitat and supporting biodiversity no matter go ahead and cut it to the butt or you wont get paid.......it appears deeply counter productive, its stuff like that (and believe me that's not an isolated example) that has me deeply deeply suspicios of anyone outside of my gates advocating changes in land use etc

magicbastarder

I've stood in parts of the amazon rainforest and native irish woodland (what small sections are left) and although both were magnificent they werent comparable imho.....Id argue the inverted commas should definitely stay.

the climax woodland of ireland on the west coast is temperate rainforest. obviously a different species mix and growth rate, etc. but it's considered rainforest.

anyway, i was just pointing out the irony of people saying 'we're better off growing meat here instead of places like brazil, at the expense of rainforest' when much of irish farming is quite literally done at the expense of rainforest. we've a pitiful amount of native woodland in ireland.

magicbastarder

Take the latest acres scheme....theres a measure in that called coppicing which pays per metre.....unless I was misinformed (and the info was from agri consultants) ...coppicing as defined by the scheme is to take a hedge and cut it to the butt, then fence it off to let it grow back thicker......if the hedge is already thick or high and providing a perfectly fine habitat and supporting biodiversity no matter go ahead and cut it to the butt or you wont get paid.......it appears deeply counter productive, its stuff like that (and believe me that's not an isolated example) that has me deeply deeply suspicios of anyone outside of my gates advocating changes in land use etc

yeah, there are several examples of schemes like that as far as i understand; where benign inaction is not rewarded, but destructive action is. padraig fogarty's 'whittled away' gives an account of a few of them.

IIRC one of the funny ones is that farmers can claim a small grant for providing sand heaps for burrowing bees. except there are no criteria about placement, or crucially, what sort of sand is used - so a farmer could simply buy a ton of builder's sand, dump it in the corner of the yard, and claim the grant, having fulfilled the requirements.

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119571370#Comment_119571370

On the basis our woodlands were cleared hundreds or perhaps a thousand years ago (as you have said) and the amazon rainforest is still in existence (albeit shrinking) ....I dont find it an unreasonable proposition that continuing to raise livestock here rather than clear more rainforest to do so might be a better idea.........not that we are going to influence policy in Brazil etc

magicbastarder

it's not an either or - in the example given, 250 acres could be left grow (largely) back to woodland - or bog, which also sequesters carbon, but it's not allowed to because of a horrendously ineffiecient farming practice. that chap is raising one lamb per hectare per annum.

his turnover is €16 per acre. that'd be a pitifully cheap income to forgo to allow woodland to redevelop, grant aiding him to do that should be a no-brainer.

the majority of farm income in ireland is via subsidies anyway, there was no mention of what subsidies he receives in the tweet, but it's highly likely the subsidies are worth significantly more than the farming activity.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119571424#Comment_119571424

Then give him more subsidies to leave the land grow with native forestry, so that its more profitable than farming a lamb per hectare.

What this has to do with cutting beef herds I have no idea

magicbastarder

The thread is about raising livestock on cleared rainforest, so that makes it relevant?

paul71

Wrong tread