Do sheep farmers deserve an extra 25m euro?

Birdnuts

Apart from a cynical election ploy by the government I can't understand why Sheep farmers, particularly hill sheep farmers are getting this extra money. When were told theres no extra money from the CAP/state for worthy projects like the FYP and native forestry schemes why should this relatively small group of farmers get 25million euro and provide nothing in the way of public good in return. Hill sheep farmers are already costing this state/ and the EU taxpayer a fortune in subsidies to support a totally unviable enterprise which continues to damage large areas of our uplands through overgrazing which the state has recently been fined millions for by the EU, not to mention the damage a significant minority of them have done to our tourism trade by restricting access to vast swathes of Irelands most spectacular countryside, plus the hardcore of them in places like Kerry who have damaged Ireland reputation worldwide by recklessly poisoning wildlife thereby hitting ecotourism which is the fastest growing visitor market out there etc.

I would be interested to know peoples views on this particulary at a time when the state is near bankrupt and stuff like childrens hospitals and cancer vacines are being cut left right and centre:(

reilig

Birdnuts wrote: »

Apart from a cynical election ploy by the government I can't understand why Sheep farmers, particularly hill sheep farmers are getting this extra money. When were told theres no extra money from the CAP/state for worthy projects like the FYP and native forestry schemes why should this relatively small group of farmers get 25million euro and provide nothing in the way of public good in return. Hill sheep farmers are already costing this state/ and the EU taxpayer a fortune in subsidies to support a totally unviable enterprise which continues to damage large areas of our uplands through overgrazing which the state has recently been fined millions for by the EU, not to mention the damage a significant minority of them have done to our tourism trade by restricting access to vast swathes of Irelands most spectacular countryside, plus the hardcore of them in places like Kerry who have damaged Ireland reputation worldwide by recklessly poisoning wildlife thereby hitting ecotourism which is the fastest growing visitor market out there etc.

I would be interested to know peoples views on this particulary at a time when the state is near bankrupt and stuff like childrens hospitals and cancer vacines are being cut left right and centre:(

People like you make me mad

How can you compare funding for sheep farmers to hospitals and vaccines?
This is totally different. This 25 Million Euro is not coming from the exchequer. It is unclaimed CAP funding - Money that would otherwise be returned to the EU if not claimed.

The HSE has an 80 Billion Euro budget.
DAFF has a fund of 12 billion.
DAFF has approximately 70% efficiency per € spent.
HSE has about 10% efficiency.

As for funding for forestry, people like you would propose to plant the whole bloody country and do away with all farmers.

Travellers receive more funding per head of population than farmers.
Cut their money and see what the reaction is.

Keeperlit

Birdnuts wrote: »

Apart from a cynical election ploy by the government I can't understand why Sheep farmers, particularly hill sheep farmers are getting this extra money. When were told theres no extra money from the CAP/state for worthy projects like the FYP and native forestry schemes why should this relatively small group of farmers get 25million euro and provide nothing in the way of public good in return. Hill sheep farmers are already costing this state/ and the EU taxpayer a fortune in subsidies to support a totally unviable enterprise which continues to damage large areas of our uplands through overgrazing which the state has recently been fined millions for by the EU, not to mention the damage a significant minority of them have done to our tourism trade by restricting access to vast swathes of Irelands most spectacular countryside, plus the hardcore of them in places like Kerry who have damaged Ireland reputation worldwide by recklessly poisoning wildlife thereby hitting ecotourism which is the fastest growing visitor market out there etc.

I would be interested to know peoples views on this particulary at a time when the state is near bankrupt and stuff like childrens hospitals and cancer vacines are being cut left right and centre:(

Keep hugging trees .what a pile of Slurry....if these lands werent grazed they would be covered in whins and rhodedenron as famers would have no reason to maintain them....and you being off almighty tree hugging knowledge remind everyone what the rhodedron bushes are doin in Killarney National park?Dont be throwing in cancer care and childrens hospitals as a cover up eithers ,Relig has explained where the money is coming from.Anyway if our goverment got that 25million it would be squandered.The farmer will put it back into the economy

The_Conductor

While I agree with the sentiment above- the figures are very simply- incorrect.

DAFF has an allocation for 2009 of ~1.95billion, from total government expenditure of ~41.4billion (these are fluid figures- but you get the picture). The biggest expenditure is the Department of Social and Family Affairs- at an estimated 18.5 billion in 2009. The HSE, Department of Health and numerous other bodies under the 'health' umbrella- combined are around 16 billion.

The HSE/Health and Social Welfare Budgets combined account for almost 80% of total government expenditure.

Birdnuts

Keeperlit wrote: »

Keep hugging trees .what a pile of Slurry....if these lands werent grazed they would be covered in whins and rhodedenron as famers would have no reason to maintain them....and you being off almighty tree hugging knowledge remind everyone what the rhodedron bushes are doin in Killarney National park?Dont be throwing in cancer care and childrens hospitals as a cover up eithers ,Relig has explained where the money is coming from.Anyway if our goverment got that 25million it would be squandered.The farmer will put it back into the economy

Its you thats spreading the slurry, sheep grazing rhodedendron??, I'd love to see that, maybe its because the've eaten all the heather, ever been to Achill were the heather use to literally hide flocks but is now only found growing on inaccessible ledges:rolleyes:

And yes I'm an ecologist who cares about the irish environment. Sad that you have to cover up your on apparent lack of knowledge on the subject by resorting to childish name calling.


PS - Irish taxpayers look like being hit again given a recent judement at EU level against Ireland for allowing our uplands to be destroyed by overgrazing to the extent that the iconic Irish Red Grouse is now seriously endangered. Given the amount of dead and emaciated sheep i and other hikers come across over the years it seems there's not enough vegetation up there to justify this unsustaineable and destructive situation.:mad:

mega man

when i walk a mile in there shoes i might then decide

Birdnuts

reilig wrote: »

People like you make me mad

How can you compare funding for sheep farmers to hospitals and vaccines?
This is totally different. This 25 Million Euro is not coming from the exchequer. It is unclaimed CAP funding - Money that would otherwise be returned to the EU if not claimed.

The HSE has an 80 Billion Euro budget.
DAFF has a fund of 12 billion.
DAFF has approximately 70% efficiency per € spent.
HSE has about 10% efficiency.

As for funding for forestry, people like you would propose to plant the whole bloody country and do away with all farmers.

Travellers receive more funding per head of population than farmers.
Cut their money and see what the reaction is.

Farmers are now the biggest sowers of forestry. I was talking about sustainable native forestry on appropriate sites, not the sterile monocultures of alien sitka spruce which have smothered many bogs and watersheds, again heavily grant-aided by the taxpayer into certain farmers pockets. I'm all for farmers getting state/EU money for doing the right thing whether is be producing high end organic produce or participation in the Burren or Corncrake schemes. Indeed if the system was reformed in such a way as to make is more enviromentally sustainable, it would be small, low intensity farmers who would benefit most, the very ones who are struggling in remote rural areas. As opposed to the IFA/Teagasc apparent policy of wanting the bulk of the grants to go to big intensive farmers who do the most damage to the environment and tourism etc..:(

The_Conductor

Guys- no personal comments please.
If you disagree with what someone posts- refute the post, without attacking the poster. Anyone who gets personal- will be banned from this forum. This is the sole warning I'm giving.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

Birdnuts

smccarrick wrote: »

Guys- no personal comments please.
If you disagree with what someone posts- refute the post, without attacking the poster. Anyone who gets personal- will be banned from this forum. This is the sole warning I'm giving.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

Here, Here and I'd like the mods to note is wasn't me who used words like slurry and treehugger:)

sparksfly

The amount of taxpayers money given in handouts to farmers to support an unsustainable industry that makes up a tiny proportion of our exports is sickening. Farming is a private enterprise. It over produces what is not needed but farmers crib when the price is not high enough. Yet they get area aid, reps, grants, rate-free commercial buildings- how much more will the working people of europe be screwed to fund this lobby group. They had no problem jumping on the building bandwagon when selling sites at inflated prices. No means test as far as handouts are concerned either.
The likes of team Aer Lingus was sold off to a foreign company as it was losing a reletivly small amount of money, even though, unlike farming, it directly and indirectly provided thousands of jobs. Irish steel was the same. No state handout there.
Cant blame the farmers by the way. They, with their super effecient IFA can get what they demand by being totally united in their protests. Compare the IFA to the crappy unions and business group representitives and its easy to see how the paye workers and small businesses are ground down while the begging farmers win hands down each time with taxpayers money. Lets get rid of handouts to this gang and make payments to private business only when there is a gross benefit to the state finances.

Mistymaud

I'm new here and not even in Ireland but thought I should maybe try and bring a bit of balance back into the discussion.

Currently I have about 7 acres, a few primitive breed sheep, a few goats and birds. Without going into detail, the animals manage the land without the use of chemicals, fertlilizers or machinery. I do this not because I am 'green' or into 'permaculture' or anything else really, it's just the way I feel I can go.

However I am not a 'farmer.' My way of living would not produce food for the masses in any way they could afford on any long term basis.

And that is the crux of the matter. Farmers today, like it or not, are required to produce vast quantities of food at affordable prices. These are quantities and prices demanded by the consumer, should subsidies be removed then the food would either disappear from the shelves or the price of it would have to include the former subsidy. Hence, I would argue that you simply cannot consider farming to be 'private enterprise,' and to argue that this should be the case would have a devasting impact both on what the consumer eats and his wallet. It would also have a devasting impact on the export economy.

In times where we are seeing governments 'bailing' out certain industries, it certainly is galling to see what we consider other more important issues being cast aside, but this does not make it less important to support your food industry, because ultimately it is not about 'jobs' it is about being able to afford to eat.

When it comes to protecting the countryside, well I am no 'ecologist' I just manage the land the best way I can and let the animals do the work without allowing them to do the damage. But, I get no subsidy, no payment, and more importantly because of this I am under no duress to follow any guidelinesthat may or may not conflict with the way I manage my land. But farmers are. They have to follow guidelines to ensure payments or they would be bankrupted and then we are back to para 4.
Neither do I think that some of the instructions doled out by the powers that be always sit comfortably with farmers. Set-aside here was considered to be 'stupid' by many. One farmer was telling me how, years ago, it was stupid to rip out hedgerows and now 'they' wanted them putting back in.
But please remember that the authorities are only reacting to world or 'consumer' demand and farmers are implementing those actions. If you really do have a problem with environmental damage or subsidy payments then you have to look at the base cause and that, unfortunately, is our own excessive consumerism.
Eat Less, Waste Less and Pay More - is not a slogan many governments would want to go into an election with.

Sam Kade

sparksfly wrote: »

The amount of taxpayers money given in handouts to farmers to support an unsustainable industry that makes up a tiny proportion of our exports is sickening. Farming is a private enterprise. It over produces what is not needed but farmers crib when the price is not high enough. Yet they get area aid, reps, grants, rate-free commercial buildings- how much more will the working people of europe be screwed to fund this lobby group. They had no problem jumping on the building bandwagon when selling sites at inflated prices. No means test as far as handouts are concerned either.
The likes of team Aer Lingus was sold off to a foreign company as it was losing a reletivly small amount of money, even though, unlike farming, it directly and indirectly provided thousands of jobs. Irish steel was the same. No state handout there.
Cant blame the farmers by the way. They, with their super effecient IFA can get what they demand by being totally united in their protests. Compare the IFA to the crappy unions and business group representitives and its easy to see how the paye workers and small businesses are ground down while the begging farmers win hands down each time with taxpayers money. Lets get rid of handouts to this gang and make payments to private business only when there is a gross benefit to the state finances.

Does that mean that you would rather pay more for the food on your table?

The_Conductor

In all fairness- it is a valid point. Historically the portion of our income we spend on basic foodstuffs, is at an all-time low.

With the advent of the Single Farm Payment- it is in a farmer's best interests to focus on those areas of production which are profitable to him/her (whatever that may be). There will always be profitable ventures- some of them are just alien to many farmers/communities (such as native woodland schemes etc- as referred to earlier in this thread).

2013 is the next major reform of the CAP- and the farming lobbies really have their work cut out for them on this occasion. Historically farming accounted for a sizeable portion of gainful employment- but it has been waning for years- and at a time where there are large unhappy unemployed/underemployed workforces- it will be very difficult to justify the CAP continuing to account for the portion of EU budgetary expenditure it is currently and has historically held. Interesting times......

Birdnuts

Mistymaud wrote: »

I'm new here and not even in Ireland but thought I should maybe try and bring a bit of balance back into the discussion.

Currently I have about 7 acres, a few primitive breed sheep, a few goats and birds. Without going into detail, the animals manage the land without the use of chemicals, fertlilizers or machinery. I do this not because I am 'green' or into 'permaculture' or anything else really, it's just the way I feel I can go.

However I am not a 'farmer.' My way of living would not produce food for the masses in any way they could afford on any long term basis.

And that is the crux of the matter. Farmers today, like it or not, are required to produce vast quantities of food at affordable prices. These are quantities and prices demanded by the consumer, should subsidies be removed then the food would either disappear from the shelves or the price of it would have to include the former subsidy. Hence, I would argue that you simply cannot consider farming to be 'private enterprise,' and to argue that this should be the case would have a devasting impact both on what the consumer eats and his wallet. It would also have a devasting impact on the export economy.

In times where we are seeing governments 'bailing' out certain industries, it certainly is galling to see what we consider other more important issues being cast aside, but this does not make it less important to support your food industry, because ultimately it is not about 'jobs' it is about being able to afford to eat.

When it comes to protecting the countryside, well I am no 'ecologist' I just manage the land the best way I can and let the animals do the work without allowing them to do the damage. But, I get no subsidy, no payment, and more importantly because of this I am under no duress to follow any guidelinesthat may or may not conflict with the way I manage my land. But farmers are. They have to follow guidelines to ensure payments or they would be bankrupted and then we are back to para 4.
Neither do I think that some of the instructions doled out by the powers that be always sit comfortably with farmers. Set-aside here was considered to be 'stupid' by many. One farmer was telling me how, years ago, it was stupid to rip out hedgerows and now 'they' wanted them putting back in.
But please remember that the authorities are only reacting to world or 'consumer' demand and farmers are implementing those actions. If you really do have a problem with environmental damage or subsidy payments then you have to look at the base cause and that, unfortunately, is our own excessive consumerism.
Eat Less, Waste Less and Pay More - is not a slogan many governments would want to go into an election with.

You make some excellent points m8 and I consdider farmers like u a model which should be supported by the EU. As you say many of the early EU policies on agriculture where a disaster(sadly their fishing policies still are:() which lead to pollution, food scares, animal welfare concerns and a serious degradation of biodiversity across Western Europe(Corncrakes gone and species like cuckoo quickly following etc.). It also failed miserably on one of its main aims(at least in Ireland) to keep farm families on the land(the figures involved in full time farming over the last 35 years speak for themselves). Thankfully its being slowly reformed(though not nearly quick enough IMO). However reform is slower in Ireland then many other countries because of the big agri-business mindset thats still embedded in Teagasc and the Dept of Agriculture. As has been mentioned elsewhere the IFA are also a problem since there only interested in the concerns of big intensive farmers. Hence the wastage of 25m euro that I wanted to point out by starting this topic, which could be used for so many other much more prodective and valuable schemes.

The fact is Ireland could use its image(which despite the ravages of the last 40 years is still a green one amazingly) to be the world capital of quality food as outlined by the likes of Reggie Corrigan, Darina Allen etc. Instead of wasting billions on a system that will never compete with the likes of Argentina and New Zealand for cheap mass produced, generally bland, poor quality products we could instead convert to an organic sustaineable system which has proved to be a huge success in places like Austria and parts of France. Then everybody wins, the public support the farmers more when it comes to grants, Ireland food sector gets a huge boast(we currently import 70% of our organcic produce alone), tourism also benefits from having a vibrant rural countryside teeming with amazing wildlife, enhanced scenary, and quality food to go along with it:). And don't forget eco-tourism is the fastest growing visitor product in the world!!

sparksfly

This notion that subsidies keep down the price of "food on the table" is rubbish. That philosophy could be applied to any produced goods where low quality overproduction could be compensated by state handouts with the unwanted amounts dumped on developing countries, destroying their native industries. New Zealand's farmers are not beggers and get no handouts but produce and export top quality foods (thousands of miles) at prices that are much lower than here.
I would rather keep the portion of my tax which helps make up these stupid handouts and have fair prices set by proper, businesslike farming which produces top quality goods, especially organics which are in demand. A country the size of ours with our perfect growing climate, exporting live animals and growing thousands of acres of barley is clearly daft. The country would benefit enormously from a clean natural, high added value type of agricultural industry producing table-ready foods for home and export markets. An industry that would not poison the food, land and waterways with sprays and fertilizers. As correctly noted by the previous poster, this green image would greatly boost our tourism. Our rivers and lakes, now dead from pollution could be revived along with our now destroyed angling business and water aminities.
Farmers had their own co-ops which marketed their produce very effeciently but sold them out for the handy pound and now whinge that these PLCs wont pay them a fair price.
You are business people, do like other successful business people, produce what is in demand. You can even create a demand by good marketing. Put Ireland back on the map as a clean, green country with top quality food produce and a healthy philosophy. Dont run with the begging bowl to the taxpayer when your mass produced rubbish wont fetch the price you demand.

reilig

Why pick on sheep farmers - €25 million is a very small share of the pot - and as I said, this is money that would otherwise be returned to the EU if unclaimed.

What experience of sheep farming or other farming do you have? Is it an opinion that you have about the destiny of these funds or is it based on facts?

Do you have any figures on sheep farmers earnings over the last 5 years, or do you know how many jobs are supported through sheep meat processing?

This money is for the farmers - to try to encourage them to stay in sheep meat production which will in turn support thousands of meat factory workers and dozens of economies of small towns across Ireland.

Organic farming is not sustainable in Ireland without the grants that these farmers receive. Food produced organically is expensive - that is why we import so much organic food. Much of this imported food is sold as organic, but when tested is far from it.

€25 million is just a drop in the ocean compared to what a small number of organic farmers in this country receive - and still they cannot produce food that can compete with ordinary farmers - despite having less fertilizer bills, no animal medicines to buy etc, etc.

Organic farming is also a very cruel way of farming - there are huge mortality rates. I have a neighbour who is very prominent in the IGA (Irish Organic Association - I think its called). He has farm walks once a year for the public to see his "wonderful" organic farm. Pity they don't see it at other times - sheep that are 12 months old and half starved. Cattle that you can count every rib on. Dead animald all over the place. Organic farming leaves a lot to be desired in my opinion.

People need to go back to the old way of growing their own fruit and veg, keeping a pig, lamb or calf. People in towns need to take allotments and councils need to supply them. People in towns need to start buying direct from the farmer again.

But I still think that you are way out by suggesting that Sheep farmers did not deserve this money.

3000 jobs went in Dell in Limerick earlier this year. It was suggested that a €30 million injection from the government could keep Dell open and retain these jobs.

€25 million will secure 6000 jobs in the rural economy between farmers and meat processors, hauliers, sheep shearers etc, etc.

Money well spent in my opinion!!!!

Birdnuts wrote: »

You make some excellent points m8 and I consdider farmers like u a model which should be supported by the EU. As you say many of the early EU policies on agriculture where a disaster(sadly their fishing policies still are:() which lead to pollution, food scares, animal welfare concerns and a serious degradation of biodiversity across Western Europe(Corncrakes gone and species like cuckoo quickly following etc.). It also failed miserably on one of its main aims(at least in Ireland) to keep farm families on the land(the figures involved in full time farming over the last 35 years speak for themselves). Thankfully its being slowly reformed(though not nearly quick enough IMO). However reform is slower in Ireland then many other countries because of the big agri-business mindset thats still embedded in Teagasc and the Dept of Agriculture. As has been mentioned elsewhere the IFA are also a problem since there only interested in the concerns of big intensive farmers. Hence the wastage of 25m euro that I wanted to point out by starting this topic, which could be used for so many other much more prodective and valuable schemes.

The fact is Ireland could use its image(which despite the ravages of the last 40 years is still a green one amazingly) to be the world capital of quality food as outlined by the likes of Reggie Corrigan, Darina Allen etc. Instead of wasting billions on a system that will never compete with the likes of Argentina and New Zealand for cheap mass produced, generally bland, poor quality products we could instead convert to an organic sustaineable system which has proved to be a huge success in places like Austria and parts of France. Then everybody wins, the public support the farmers more when it comes to grants, Ireland food sector gets a huge boast(we currently import 70% of our organcic produce alone), tourism also benefits from having a vibrant rural countryside teeming with amazing wildlife, enhanced scenary, and quality food to go along with it:). And don't forget eco-tourism is the fastest growing visitor product in the world!!

Mistymaud

sparksfly wrote: »

This notion that subsidies keep down the price of "food on the table" is rubbish. That philosophy could be applied to any produced goods where low quality overproduction could be compensated by state handouts with the unwanted amounts dumped on developing countries, destroying their native industries. New Zealand's farmers are not beggers and get no handouts but produce and export top quality foods (thousands of miles) at prices that are much lower than here.
I would rather keep the portion of my tax which helps make up these stupid handouts and have fair prices set by proper, businesslike farming which produces top quality goods, especially organics which are in demand. A country the size of ours with our perfect growing climate, exporting live animals and growing thousands of acres of barley is clearly daft. The country would benefit enormously from a clean natural, high added value type of agricultural industry producing table-ready foods for home and export markets. An industry that would not poison the food, land and waterways with sprays and fertilizers. As correctly noted by the previous poster, this green image would greatly boost our tourism. Our rivers and lakes, now dead from pollution could be revived along with our now destroyed angling business and water aminities.
Farmers had their own co-ops which marketed their produce very effeciently but sold them out for the handy pound and now whinge that these PLCs wont pay them a fair price.
You are business people, do like other successful business people, produce what is in demand. You can even create a demand by good marketing. Put Ireland back on the map as a clean, green country with top quality food produce and a healthy philosophy. Dont run with the begging bowl to the taxpayer when your mass produced rubbish wont fetch the price you demand.

I'm no expert on the New Zealand sheep farming industry, but I do know that land, property, fuel prices, are much lower than in Ireland and costs involved in producing anything are obviously closely related to these things. Which is probably why many UK farmers are moving to NZ to enable them to continue farming.

I would also ask that you recall the term 'organic' means different things in different countries, much in the same way that 'free range' is different. I think, (it used to be) that here in the UK bird stocking density is 400 hens per acre, other EU countries say 1,000 birds per acre - so it may not be quite the Happy Hen you have in mind.

Don't get me wrong, I really do understand where you are coming from when you are talking about sprays, fertilizers etc, if I didn't get it, I wouldn't live the way I do. But you have managed to complete a whole response without mention of consumer impact, and I really would like to know your thoughts on that issue.

Also there is the slightly contradictory references to the environment. You don't want it damaging, yet you seem more than happy to buy food that has been shipped thousands of miles - is this a case of what the eye doesn't see the heart doesn't grieve over. Surely you should really be boycotting this 'cheap' food?

When it comes to sheep farming, well, that is something I can give a small example of.
As I mentioned before all my sheep are primitives, but one is a hebridean. The heb, as opposed to all of the others, requires very little to rear and keep. She doesn't, even in the winter, come dashing in for sheep nuts. Certainly as soon as the really cold wet weather eases up, she wouldn't even stand up for any if you shook a bucket in front of her. She does however like a bit of hay, but nothing like as much as any of the others. She requires little, if any shearing. Even a cack-handed simpleton like myself who flails around with dagging shears can do her in 5 minutes.
BUT, this isn't the commercial, fast growing, fat, sheep that the market requires. I WOULD NOT be able to sell her as a meat breed. Neither, although the wool market in general is rubbish, would I be able to sell her fleece. It's lightweight and harsh and coloured.

The market (consumer) you see, doesn't request this.
What they want is a fast growing sheep, a commercial breed - one that requires a lot of feeding, goes to market at a younger age. They want the meat, they want it good, they want lots of it (never find that on a heb!) they want it cheap, they want it NOW.
So a commercial sheep, although it goes to market sooner, does cost more to rear. They graze differently, more heavily, the stocking densities have to be different to meet consumer demand.

So again, I will point you in the direction of looking at the consumer - and hope, this time, you will take in at least some of what I'm saying.
Of course there is always the alternative - you could move out into the country, get some sheep and show us all how it is done. Sarcastic as this comment may seem, I for one, would be very interested in listening to how you get on, because believe it or not, I am very willing to learn.

Mistymaud

Birdnuts - the thing is I'm not a farmer, and I could never be a farmer, because I couldn't produce what the consumer wants, when they want it, at a price they want to pay (or could possibly afford to)
This is my point, that the market is consumer driven, the EU is consumer driven, and without a change in consumer attitudes and habits, then things won't change.

The situation, like it or not, requires a lot more introspection and thought than simply plonking a whole load of blame on sheep farmers or just farmers in general.

It's fine to look around at the environment and form an opinion that the countryside has changed because of all the sheep milling about on it, but ultimately those sheep are milling because you, the consumer, want them there. You can't have your cake and eat it.
There is, or should be though, some middle ground, but that would require a lot of listening and quite a bit of compromise from both sides, and if you look at Sparksfly's response, you can see what it would take to get there.

And while I'm on, I'd just like to say a word in defence of our humble livestock.

Why, oh why, are people so derogatory about them. Be it cattle, sheep, chickens or whatever.
For many, many years now, I've heard people, particularly those who are concerned about the environment, speak out so strongly in favour of wildlife, be it corncrakes or foxes, and then have so little respect for the animals that have kept us well fed for thousands of years.
Should it be that we turn out a few wild sheep, goats, cattle into the countryside. Would people then start to look at these animals who have given us so much with a fraction of the respect given to a swan?
I was talking to the Ranger's wife at the weekend and I freely admit to not knowing what the birds are flying about my place. I do sit and watch them though, probably too much, but couldn't for the life of me apart from one or two, tell you what their names are.
But do you know, the ranger's wife didn't know anything about farmyard birds neither. She didn't know that geese never sit touching, she didn't know that a cockrell makes the same noise to tell his girlfriend when he's found her a worm that a mother hen makes to her chicks to tell them she's found something.

To think only the wildlife around us can be interesting and worth preserving is ... well ... contradictory.

kfk

I agree with reilig that organic farming can be very cruel to the animals. A neighbour or mine used homeopathic remedies on a cow with mastitis last year to avoid the withdrawal times associated with intramammary antibiotic tubes. The cow became very ill within a few days, her udder and back legs swelled up and she stopped eating. By the time the vet came to give proper treatment it was too late. The cow lived a few more days but she was in horrendous condition by the time she died. Cost the farmer dearly in the long run. Loss of the cow, loss of a calf the following spring and loss of milk sales. I believe that without the use of antibiotics on farms, there would be massive losses. How could you treat a calf with pneumonia? How could you treat a cow with metritis? There is no alternative to antibiotics.

Mistymaud

To a certain extent KFK, I do actually agree with you and Reilig, but, since I'm unsure with regard to medications as to what defines 'organic,' I'm not completely sure the comments are accurate.

I think, but don't know because I'm not organic, that here in the UK antibiotics are allowed and most organic farms use them. In fact, not regarding antibiotics but vaccinations, it would be illegal not to use them. So even organic here is not completely 'chemical free.'

If, however, you both mean that some people try to remain purely organic in what they personally define, then to some extent I have to say I agree.
Then again, and I have seen quite a bit of 'cruelty' on the smallholdings, I think a lot of it is down to bad husbandry. New entrants to the world of farming/smallholding who have little knowledge and an idealistic view of it.

Then again I'd got a goat with a bit of a persistent sore on his back last week and finally rubbed Aloe vera on it ... its cleared up.

As an addition though:
Could somebody please explain to me the difference between a commercial lamb and organic lamb?
Taking into consideration that commercial lambs are usually fed supplements (not organic) but are still normally grazed on heathlands etc (where farmers tend not to fertilize/spray) and they go to market at a very young age, I mean, really how could the meat be so different?
Surely there's nothing closer to being naturally 'organic' than lamb?
How can NZ lamb be deemed so tasty, and Irish lamb so tasteless?

kfk

Link to the organic trust. Some of the info on this link appears to be questionable.

http://www.organic-trust.org/info/detail/10_reasons_for_choosing_to_buy_organic_food/

Mistymaud

Thank you.

You see it does say with regard to antibiotics 'prohibit the routine use.' Now I would think, just guessing, that this applies in situations where you get intensively reared animals such as hens, and antibiotics tend to be used as a preventative, rather than curative?
I don't think it means you are totally prohibted from using them, especially when an animal's welfare is at stake, so I do think that when farmers rely completely on something like homeopathy, then it is purely personal choice?

reilig

Mistymaud wrote: »

Thank you.

You see it does say with regard to antibiotics 'prohibit the routine use.' Now I would think, just guessing, that this applies in situations where you get intensively reared animals such as hens, and antibiotics tend to be used as a preventative, rather than curative?
I don't think it means you are totally prohibted from using them, especially when an animal's welfare is at stake, so I do think that when farmers rely completely on something like homeopathy, then it is purely personal choice?

My understanding of it is that any use of antibiotics means that the animal is no longer organic. If an animal is sick, and given an antibiotic, it has to be sold as commercial.

I totally agree with one of your points above and it was a point that I was trying to make earlier. Organic means different things in different countries. Much of the organic vegetables that are imported to Ireland come from Holland. Organic standards in Holland are a long way off Irish regulations for organic. Some might say that you could be safer eating ordinary Irish Vegetables. Organic in Central Europe is a brand name rather than a standard and some Irish people are tricked into buying these imported products above the same quality Irish products.

The_Conductor

kfk wrote: »

Link to the organic trust. Some of the info on this link appears to be questionable.

http://www.organic-trust.org/info/detail/10_reasons_for_choosing_to_buy_organic_food/

A lot of those claims are seriously dodgy to be perfectly honest........

10 Reasons for choosing to buy organic food

Ten good reasons for choosing organic produce.

1. IT IS HEALTHY
Research continues to show that essential vitamins and minerals are higher in many organic foods. On average, organic food contains higher levels of vitamin C and essential minerals such as magnesium, iron and chromium as well as cancer fighting antioxidants. Both US and UK Government statistics indicate that levels of trace elements and minerals in fruit and vegetables fell by up to 76% between 1949 and 1991.

There is no indication whatsoever that organic farming has any effect on Vitamin C and trace elemental levels. Quoting random statistics to show a historical lowering of levels is quite meaningless- and can in all probability be explained by intensification of farming methods- rather than organic versus inorganic etc.

2. NO NASTY ADDITIVES
Organic food doesn’t contain food additives, which can cause health problems such as heart disease, asthma, osteoporosis, migraines, food allergies and hyperactivity. Among the additives banned by organic regulations are hydrogenated fats, aspartame and monosodium glutamate and all artificial colourings, flavourings and sweeteners

Many inorganic foods don't contain these nasty additives either. This one is really playing on people's fears- plain and simple.

3. AVOIDS PESTICIDES
More than 400 chemical pesticides are routinely used in conventional farming. Residues of these pesticides are regularly found in a high percentage of fruit and vegetables, and in 2004 the European Commission stated that a risk to human health cannot be ruled out anymore.

Routinely used- is a rather abused expression. In Ireland there are less than 15 'routinely used' pesticides (aka- they make up over 90% of all pesticides applied). Vis-a-vis trace amounts of pesticides in fruit and veg- yes, it is an issue- however by blowing things out of proportion- it causes rational people to question the very basis of claims.

4. NO GM

Genetically modified organisms or crops are not allowed under organic standards.

Fine. Blowing the GM trumpet is a bit of a red herring in a European context though- consumers have spoken- any consumer products that admit to containing GM ingredients- inevitably don't sell. Monsanto have lobbied for several years to have this labelling requirement revoked.

5. RELIANCE ON DRUGS REMOVED
There is growing concern about the high use of antibiotics on farm animals and the possible risk to health. Organic standards prohibit the routine use of antibiotics.

High use in certain farming practices are appalling (some farming sectors- such as the poultry sector- have a hell of a lot to answer for). Appropriate use of pertinent medications, when required, and under proper supervision- can be the most humane way to care for and tend animals. Look at the example a few posts up about the poor cow who died in agony from an untreated infection- this could have been very easily treated with appropriate medications. Instead the poor animal suffered needlessly.

6. NO HIDDEN COSTS
Compare this with the millions that tax payers fork out for removing chemicals from drinking water. This is mainly as a result of the pesticides and fertilizers used in conventional farming.

There most certainly are hidden costs in organic farming-

these include:

Farming subsidies
Fuel subsidies
Cost of transport of goods
Income support subsidies etc

7. HIGH STANDARDS
Organic food comes from trusted sources. All organic farms and food companies are inspected at least once a year to establish the compliance with the Irish and European regulations.

I'm sorry. Why should an annual inspection reassure me? I'm not a child- if I want to know where my food comes from- I'm perfectly capable of asking and visiting various farms myself- and have done so. Why should I put any credence in the random word of a random overworked inspector's annual report?

8. CARE FOR ANIMALS
Animal welfare is a crucial and integral part of organic standards.
The benefits of the organic approach are acknowledged by animal welfare organisations such as Compassion in World Farming.

All those bonny bouncing lambs on New Zealands scenic mountain sides- seem to have the best of lives in the world to me. If I were a farm animal- thats where I'd like to be! I know organic farming implies the abondoning of battery conditions for hens etc- which is to be applauded- but the implication that regular farming methods are inherently cruel- just doesn't hold water. Certain aspects- yes, farming practices in general- nope.

9. GOOD FOR WILDLIFE
Research has shown that organic farming is better for wildlife, creates less pollution from sprays and produces less of the global warming gas carbon dioxide.

Less carbon dioxide? The only way to produce less CO2 is by employing lower intensity farming practices- be it lower stocking levels- or practices which lock greater amounts of CO2. Organic farming is carbon neutral- as is regular farming. CO2 that is removed from the atmosphere during photosynthesis, is returned on digestion of the products produced. Long term locking of CO2 (by forestry or other practices) has very little to do with organic farming- and is actually enhanced by the application of appropriate fertiliser). If they are claiming they produce less CO2- by using less automation- you have to temper this claim by comparing the quantities produced- versus the amount of inputs. Their fuel consumption may be lower per hectare- but so too is their production- so its clearly a self defeating argument.

10. TOP FOR TASTE
Many people choose organic food because they say it tastes better.

Perhaps.
Line up 20 people who claim it tastes better and ask them to do a blind taste test of regularly produced Irish lamb versus organically produced Irish lamb- I guarantee you those who pick organic do so by blind chance more than anything else...... If you have lambs out on a hillside eating all sorts of lovely vegetation- it will naturally flavour their meat. This is irrespective of whether they are organic or not.......

I'm not for or against organic farming- I am very much against making totally unsubstantiated claims in the guise of scientific facts however. Personally- I would rather have fewer chemicals and pesticides in my diet- but I'd also like to send some of the organic spokespeople back to school to learn some basic facts.......

Birdnuts

smccarrick wrote: »

A lot of those claims are seriously dodgy to be perfectly honest........



There is no indication whatsoever that organic farming has any effect on Vitamin C and trace elemental levels. Quoting random statistics to show a historical lowering of levels is quite meaningless-

rather than organic versus inorganic etc.



Many inorganic foods don't contain these nasty additives either. This one is really playing on people's fears- plain and simple.



Routinely used- is a rather abused expression. In Ireland there are less than 15 'routinely used' pesticides (aka- they make up over 90% of all pesticides applied). Vis-a-vis trace amounts of pesticides in fruit and veg- yes, it is an issue- however by blowing things out of proportion- it causes rational people to question the very basis of claims.



Fine. Blowing the GM trumpet is a bit of a red herring in a European context though- consumers have spoken- any consumer products that admit to containing GM ingredients- inevitably don't sell. Monsanto have lobbied for several years to have this labelling requirement revoked.



High use in certain farming practices are appalling (some farming sectors- such as the poultry sector- have a hell of a lot to answer for). Appropriate use of pertinent medications, when required, and under proper supervision- can be the most humane way to care for and tend animals. Look at the example a few posts up about the poor cow who died in agony from an untreated infection- this could have been very easily treated with appropriate medications. Instead the poor animal suffered needlessly.



There most certainly are hidden costs in organic farming-

these include:

Farming subsidies
Fuel subsidies
Cost of transport of goods
Income support subsidies etc



I'm sorry. Why should an annual inspection reassure me? I'm not a child- if I want to know where my food comes from- I'm perfectly capable of asking and visiting various farms myself- and have done so. Why should I put any credence in the random word of a random overworked inspector's annual report?



All those bonny bouncing lambs on New Zealands scenic mountain sides- seem to have the best of lives in the world to me. If I were a farm animal- thats where I'd like to be! I know organic farming implies the abondoning of battery conditions for hens etc- which is to be applauded- but the implication that regular farming methods are inherently cruel- just doesn't hold water. Certain aspects- yes, farming practices in general- nope.



Less carbon dioxide? The only way to produce less CO2 is by employing lower intensity farming practices- be it lower stocking levels- or practices which lock greater amounts of CO2. Organic farming is carbon neutral- as is regular farming. CO2 that is removed from the atmosphere during photosynthesis, is returned on digestion of the products produced. Long term locking of CO2 (by forestry or other practices) has very little to do with organic farming- and is actually enhanced by the application of appropriate fertiliser). If they are claiming they produce less CO2- by using less automation- you have to temper this claim by comparing the quantities produced- versus the amount of inputs. Their fuel consumption may be lower per hectare- but so too is their production- so its clearly a self defeating argument.



Perhaps.
Line up 20 people who claim it tastes better and ask them to do a blind taste test of regularly produced Irish lamb versus organically produced Irish lamb- I guarantee you those who pick organic do so by blind chance more than anything else...... If you have lambs out on a hillside eating all sorts of lovely vegetation- it will naturally flavour their meat. This is irrespective of whether they are organic or not.......

I'm not for or against organic farming- I am very much against making totally unsubstantiated claims in the guise of scientific facts however. Personally- I would rather have fewer chemicals and pesticides in my diet- but I'd also like to send some of the organic spokespeople back to school to learn some basic facts.......

I totally disagree. Unless peoples tastbuds have been destroyed by years of eating proccessed foods you'll find organic, locally produced food tastes better. Its the difference between a delicious tender young carrot barely a day harvested versus a pre-packed tough old shrivelled excuse of thing imported weeks ago. When I had organic free range ham in France recently I could not beleive it was the same product called ham in Ireland such was the difference in quality and taste.

Also by definition organic farming is none intensive so the food does indeed taste better and contain more vitamins etc.


Pesticide use is indeed a big issue, even more so now given whats happening to honey bees around the world


Are people seriously suggesting that organic free-range pigs and chickens have a worse quality of life then their counterparts in giant intensive battery units?????????????/:rolleyes:

Birdnuts

Mistymaud wrote: »

Birdnuts - the thing is I'm not a farmer, and I could never be a farmer, because I couldn't produce what the consumer wants, when they want it, at a price they want to pay (or could possibly afford to)
This is my point, that the market is consumer driven, the EU is consumer driven, and without a change in consumer attitudes and habits, then things won't change.

The situation, like it or not, requires a lot more introspection and thought than simply plonking a whole load of blame on sheep farmers or just farmers in general.

It's fine to look around at the environment and form an opinion that the countryside has changed because of all the sheep milling about on it, but ultimately those sheep are milling because you, the consumer, want them there. You can't have your cake and eat it.
There is, or should be though, some middle ground, but that would require a lot of listening and quite a bit of compromise from both sides, and if you look at Sparksfly's response, you can see what it would take to get there.

And while I'm on, I'd just like to say a word in defence of our humble livestock.

Why, oh why, are people so derogatory about them. Be it cattle, sheep, chickens or whatever.
For many, many years now, I've heard people, particularly those who are concerned about the environment, speak out so strongly in favour of wildlife, be it corncrakes or foxes, and then have so little respect for the animals that have kept us well fed for thousands of years.
Should it be that we turn out a few wild sheep, goats, cattle into the countryside. Would people then start to look at these animals who have given us so much with a fraction of the respect given to a swan?
I was talking to the Ranger's wife at the weekend and I freely admit to not knowing what the birds are flying about my place. I do sit and watch them though, probably too much, but couldn't for the life of me apart from one or two, tell you what their names are.
But do you know, the ranger's wife didn't know anything about farmyard birds neither. She didn't know that geese never sit touching, she didn't know that a cockrell makes the same noise to tell his girlfriend when he's found her a worm that a mother hen makes to her chicks to tell them she's found something.

To think only the wildlife around us can be interesting and worth preserving is ... well ... contradictory.

I don't understand were your coming from. The beauty of organic low intensive farming is that it benefits all biodiversity both domestic and wild, as I've pointed out in previous posts.

The_Conductor

Birdnuts wrote: »

I totally disagree. Unless peoples tastbuds have been destroyed by years of eating proccessed foods you'll find organic, locally produced food tastes better. Its the difference between a delicious tender young carrot barely a day harvested versus a pre-packed tough old shrivelled excuse of thing imported weeks ago. When I had organic free range ham in France recently I could not beleive it was the same product called ham in Ireland such was the difference in quality and taste.

I gave an appropriate example- New Zealand lamb- versus organic Irish lamb- where in blind taste tests consumers actually cannot tell the difference. Using an example of weeks old produce versus 'delicious tender young carrot barely a day harvested'- is falling into the same marketting blackhole as that website. You are using the most extreme example you can come up with- to try to prove a point- you are not comparing an average product with an average product. Wander into any supermarket and you will see bags of brushed or washed veg- normally with an indication of when and where it was harvested, along with a 'display until' sticker- alongside organic produce (often in a different section for marketing reasons). Sure- you may have a smaller retailer somewhere- or a British multiple who has imported produce from the other side of the globe- they are not the norm however.

I am not comparing battery hens- with freerange hens (which for the most part are still not classified as 'organic'), versus 'organic' chicken- thats your comparison- not mine.

I've had freerange ham in France too- delicious it was. I also had delicious cider pork- which wasn't organic. I've been on many taste panels over the past 20 years- and can be very scathing when I think its appropriate. Normally its not the raw product thats at fault- it the manner in which its processed prior to the consumer getting his/her hands on it.

If you really want a stark taste contrast- compare prime cuts of Irish beef to similar cuts of Brazillian beef. There is no comparison. Neither product is organic- but the differences in taste and quality are seismic.

If you really want a contrast- compare organic beetroot from your local farmers market- with fresh beetroot grown at home (inorganically)- and it is something I've done- I grow a lot of my own fruit and veg- the fresher product will win the taste test immediately- regardless of whether its organic or inorganic.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Also by definition organic farming is none intensive so the food does indeed taste better and contain more vitamins etc.

Vitamin levels can be quantifiably measured, taste on the other hand cannot. Blind panels when presented with similar foods, similarly prepared and presented- are statistically incapable of differentiating between them. It quite simply is not the case that if the product is not organic- its been sitting in a bag on a shelf for long periods of time and is not a high quality good. This is a myth perpetuated by you and others. Certainly there are really poor quality foods available out there- but just as certainly as I can buy a 4 week old bag of carrots from Egypt in Marks and Spencer- I can also buy rotting organic mushrooms in several farmers markets- that may have only been picked a day or two previous.......

Vis-a-via vitamin levels- there is a direct correlation between legth of time from harvest to table and vitamin levels- irrespective of the production type. The fresher produce will tend to have higher vitamin levels- regardless of how its produced.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Pesticide use is indeed a big issue, even more so now given whats happening to honey bees around the world

Varroa is as much an issue with honey bees- and as is the case with pesticides- the average consumer doesn't understand either issue properly. I am aware of the Irish research in this area (there are 2 ongoing studies)- colony collapse is a very complex issue- the cause of which has not been proven one way or the other.

Personally- I have big issues with pesticide use- as I stated above- however as I also stated above- I have severe issues with farmers who insist on using alternate medicines- when an appropriate course of correct antibiotics, appropriately dispensed can clear an infection quickly and with minimal discomfort for an animal (the poor cow who died from an infection as a result of complications from mastitis was used as an example).

Birdnuts wrote: »

Are people seriously suggesting that organic free-range pigs and chickens have a worse quality of life then their counterparts in giant intensive battery units?????????????/:rolleyes:

Just who suggested this? I certainly didn't. I said if I were to die and come back as a farm animal- by choice I'd be a lamb in New Zealand. You are delibertly using mock outrage to try to tar respectable farmers who genuinely care for the animals in their care- but do not practice organic farming. I cannot think of any sane person who would try to argue in favour of battery units- they are barbaric on several different levels- totally aside from the appalling lives the poultry have- the manner in which they are dosed with antibiotics- which then enter the human food chain. However to use this example as ammunition against responsible farmers who have happy, well tended, flocks of sheep and goats- or cows in their most natural habitat in the world- is not just bizarre- it smacks of desperation. No-one in their right minds condone battery conditions- full stop.

reilig

Birdnuts wrote: »

I totally disagree. Unless peoples tastbuds have been destroyed by years of eating proccessed foods you'll find organic, locally produced food tastes better. Its the difference between a delicious tender young carrot barely a day harvested versus a pre-packed tough old shrivelled excuse of thing imported weeks ago. When I had organic free range ham in France recently I could not beleive it was the same product called ham in Ireland such was the difference in quality and taste.

QUOTE]

You seem to be confusing two types of food here. Just because a carrot or any other type of vegetable is not classified as organic does not mean that it has to be prepacked or frozen. As a whole, fruit and veg tastes better when its fresh from the ground - be it organic or non organic.

On your other point, the taste of ham depends on what the pig was fed on. Irish ham tends to all have a common taste because our pigs are fed in a system quite similar to the battery hen and are fed processed food. I have kept a pig in the past and had it slaughtered for my own use. They were always fed free range with unprocessed meal, vegetables and grass/worms/grubs etc. The pig was by no means organic - I had to dose and inject him or he would have been as thin as a rake. But the taste of the meat from him was incomparable to pork or bacon that you would buy from a shop or butcher.

Like the sheep, I personally believe that it is inhumane to keep them as organic without dosing for fluke, worms etc. Animals suffer so that someone can sell their meat at a premium.

Funny, there are a few organic farmers within 10 miles of me. In the past, they would not have been considered the greatest farmers in the world. They never dosed, were always overstocked, didn't spread fertilizer, always outwintered cattle and generally didn't have good farming practices. Many of these farmers converted to organic farming with ease because it didn't call for too many changes - except maybe reducing their stocking levels - but they were more than compensated for this with higher premiums. Its not a good promotion for the organic cause.

Keeperlit

No need to defend the farmers relig or smmccarrick......bidnuts is only here to piss people off......sure what else did he/she expect by putting a post like that in the farming section..........also you keep referring to eco tourism.....In my locality there is a hostel specifically aimed at this....Very well run and i think its a great idea however it lies idle for almost 8 months of the year.......the local sheep farmer however needs fertiliser,feedstuffs and a huge amount of miscellanous items throughout the year.They buy tractors machinery etc.They sell produce in the local marts.The sheep farmer that does not deserve this 25 million is keeping hundreds of jobs in rural ireland.......Im all for ecotourism but its not goin to sustain the people of rural Ireland......




And referring back to previous posts...You aim to mock people but is you that is misinterpreting people....I never said anything about sheep eating rhodedendron.....I said farmers would have no call to maintain their lands from Scrub and weeds like them if they didnt have sheep

Mistymaud

Birdnuts wrote: »

I don't understand were your coming from. The beauty of organic low intensive farming is that it benefits all biodiversity both domestic and wild, as I've pointed out in previous posts.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood you earlier when you made a post that appeared to be quite scathing of sheep grazing heather and as I pointed out in my other post, what exactly is the difference between organic lamb and commercial lamb? They all graze.

I actually thought I'd made a pretty good job of explaining that it's consumerism that drives the flock numbers, not either the farmers or 'commercial' flocks of sheep.

To be honest Birdnuts I really think you are arguing your case with the wrong people. It's quite apparent where the problems lie and that is with the EU, governments and local governments, who apply subsidies to where they think demand will utilize it.

I also think McCarrick has made some extremely good and well informed points and is, whether you think so or not, raising substantive issues and I for one have learned a lot and appreciate his time in responding.

Maybe, rather than farmers learning about ecology (which I've found many are extremely well versed in) the ecologist's should put more effort into learning about livestock, farming and consumer driven habits, rather than just jumping up in the air when the heather disappears or subsidies are handed out.

The cart is being put well and truly before the horse. You have to change consumer attitudes then farmers will provide what the consumer wants at a price he can afford to. Probably would cost a lot more in subsidies but there you go ...

pakalasa

Interesting Post.

There is nothing that gets to farmers more than so called emvironmentalists dictating policy. People who never even lambed a sheep telling farmers how they should go about their business. You can understand "Birdnuts" how condecending this all sounds. The scary thing is that the more urban a society we become the further removed policy makers are from real life on the farm. There was a time when most Irish people had some connection with a farm, parents grew up on a farm etc. Sadly this is no longer the case. We are becoming more like the UK.

To me, protecting the environment is all about one thing - sustainability.
In Diarmuids Gavins recent documentary "Blood Of The Irish". DNA was extracted from a 5,000 year old burial site in the Burren, not too far from where I live. A young girl, from what I remember. In the local primary school they took DNA samples from the local kids. To their surprise FIVE of them were directly related to that 5,000 year old child........ And still BIRDNUTS people like you will still come along and tell these people how to farm.:mad:

Graffogefarms

If the sheep and the cattle farmers get so much subsidies, why can't us goat farmers? We get nothing. I just had my bunch tb tested - ~(clear thankfully) and we are not producing yet - but it cost me 264 euros. But we get nothing, no subsidies, or anything! Not a penny. We don't even have a Teagasc person anymore - Fantastic fellow had to retire and has not been replaced nor is there any sign of anyone for us. So stop whining cattle and sheep farmers - at least you get something.

The_Conductor

Graffogefarms wrote: »

If the sheep and the cattle farmers get so much subsidies, why can't us goat farmers? We get nothing. I just had my bunch tb tested - ~(clear thankfully) and we are not producing yet - but it cost me 264 euros. But we get nothing, no subsidies, or anything! Not a penny. We don't even have a Teagasc person anymore - Fantastic fellow had to retire and has not been replaced nor is there any sign of anyone for us. So stop whining cattle and sheep farmers - at least you get something.

I had a herd number for my goats- and received the exact same subsidy as I got for my sheep (this is going way back). I don't see why a case couldn't be made to have goats treated on the same footing as sheep (if you'll excuse the very weak pun). Headage has come and gone- so you will be looking to use goats as stocking units in REPS (or under whatever scheme it is that you intend to use). The lack of a goat advisor in Teagasc aside- a general conversation with an advisor might be a useful exercise?

Graffogefarms

Unfortunately without the one teagasc advisory- you are not going to get much other than blank stares when you mention goats. It's just not encouraged. But it makes me more determined. But I still think that we should be just as entitled as any sheep or cow farmer! I rely a lot on other goat keepers, in the US via the net, and my own experience.

The_Conductor

They are categorised in the same manner as sheep (as was reflected in headage payments)- I really cannot see why they couldn't be used interchangeably with sheep for the purpose of accessing any funds that may be available......?

SkepticOne

Mistymaud wrote: »

If you really do have a problem with environmental damage or subsidy payments then you have to look at the base cause and that, unfortunately, is our own excessive consumerism.
Eat Less, Waste Less and Pay More - is not a slogan many governments would want to go into an election with.

But if this is what you advocate, why are you also advocating subsidised food?

Mistymaud

It may be what I advocate, but I'll bet my dog it isn't going to happen.

Besides which, whether you go commercial or organic, it will all need subsidising. In fact I would go as far as to say it would be stupid not to subsidise, particularly since Ireland, same as the UK, is essentially an island (or group of them)
If governments particularly in these locations simply decided to stop subsidising food sources what do you think the end result will be and why?
Apart from the fact that food prices would go up, shortages would result, who on earth wants to be beholden to the rest of the world for what we eat. What kind of vulnerable position could be worse?

For all the arguments I've heard on the organic v commercial front, and I've heard quite a few because here in the UK we seemed to be where you are now about 5 years ago, I've never heard one factual discussion that has given me common-sense, practical answers, to the solution.

I'm sure if you've read the rest of this thread you will realise that my life, although certainly not self-sustainable, is closer than most. But I am aware of the problems involved in transferring all farming over to organic - and it was, and still is, in the hands of the consumer.

By the same token, I'm presuming if you want subsidies to sheep farmers to stop, then you will not allow them to re-commence should sheep farming become 'organic.' (and I've still not had a definative response to the 'organic' sheep question either)

Really though, don't you think the time for chucking questions about is over. Shouldn't we be looking at the grey areas rather than black and white ie, one side is wrong and the other side is right. Compromise based on accurate information is really what is needed and to be honest threads like this where people just come on and poke a stick at farmers in general are losing their validity, as are the ecologists that do it.

I've raised several serious questions on here and as yet, not one has been answered by the 'pro' ecology lobby, all that happens is somebody comes back on and chucks another question.

It sorta makes you think that you really don't want things to change at all but just enjoy grumbling about it.

Mistymaud

... and while I've got five minutes ...
when we are talking about smallholding/organic etc, as a point of interest, since Tuesday I've been messing about trying to sort out a new-entrant smallholder whose pigs got sunburned.
... only I did mention last week that they needed to be shifted out of the sun ...

Now you've got pigs with sunburn/heatstroke that need sorting out because it can be fatal to them.

In no way am I saying anybody has been cruel to these pigs, but there has been a lack of good husbandry through ignorance, and believe me I've seen a hell of a lot of it particularly these past 6 years or so.

Farming, or at least organic farming/smallholding/self-sufficiency is seen as simple, it's The Good Life, well here's the news - it isn't.
It's complex, it's hard graft, and if I live to be 120 I would still consider myself a novice.
It is an 'ideal,' only that ideal takes years of knowledge building, land development and maintenance and dedication.
To even suggest it is something that can be sorted out on a whim by getting rid of commercial farmers and subsidies is naive in the extreme.

SkepticOne

Mistymaud wrote: »

It may be what I advocate, but I'll bet my dog it isn't going to happen.

Besides which, whether you go commercial or organic, it will all need subsidising. In fact I would go as far as to say it would be stupid not to subsidise, particularly since Ireland, same as the UK, is essentially an island (or group of them)
If governments particularly in these locations simply decided to stop subsidising food sources what do you think the end result will be and why?
Apart from the fact that food prices would go up, shortages would result, who on earth wants to be beholden to the rest of the world for what we eat. What kind of vulnerable position could be worse?

Yes, prices would go up but that would encourage people to waste less, consume less, etc as you advocate.

I think you are being contradictory is what you advocate. If something is being produced and consumed in excess as you say, then surely you should not be subsidising it?

SkepticOne

Mistymaud wrote: »

Farming, or at least organic farming/smallholding/self-sufficiency is seen as simple, it's The Good Life, well here's the news - it isn't.
It's complex, it's hard graft, and if I live to be 120 I would still consider myself a novice.

I would never say it is easy, but no one is forcing you to go into that business (and it is a business) in the first place.

Mistymaud

SkepticOne wrote: »

I would never say it is easy, but no one is forcing you to go into that business (and it is a business) in the first place.

You clearly haven't read these threads at all, have you?

For starters, for me, it's not a business, it's a lifestyle.

That lifestyle, although it may be difficult, is one of my own choosing because I, personally, believe in protecting the environment, reducing impact on diminishing resources and rearing animals in the best way I can - which, I think I'm correct in saying, is the way ecologists want farming to go.

And then you say it is a choice as a business and if it's going to be difficult then not to make it. Do you want organic or not???

My point is, if you want organic farming and increased animal welfare then it actually requires more input than regular commercial farming ... that's it.

Reducing subsidies may encourage people to waste less ... or it may leave the market open for excessive imports. My bet is on the second. Take away subsidies from Irish commercial farmers and all you are doing is killing the industry and leaving yourself open to possibly controlling competition.
Do you think if you took away the farming subsidy from commercial farmers they would suddenly all turn to organic and that the consumer would pay more for organic than commercial (sometimes called organic) imports, because I don't.
Organic certainly has a following, but only up to a certain price.

By all means give organic farmers more subsidies, but at the same time imports must be regulated - the transition is slow and difficult.

Mistymaud

Skepticone - I'll give you an example of what happened a while back.


I went on a UK forum, must be well over 4 years ago now, and said the unthinkable 'food prices are going to rise.'
Apparently it made me the devil incarnate and, unlike this forum where McCarrick comes on and strictly intervenes, I got seriously lambasted.

Now I'd made these comments purely on observation: I'd seen top soils having to be imported to 'rural' Lincolnshire and where they weren't brought in fields were decimated with sandblow to the point they'd grow nothing more than ragwort even when they'd been ploughed, fertilized and weeded.
I'd talked to farmers about yields remaining the same per acreage despite increasing the use of fertilizers etc because the land had been so drained of all nutrients.
I'd watching the oil market fluctuate and figured prices would be on the increase.

All this said one thing to me - we were in for price hikes and should support our own food industry.

Well, all hell broke lose, can't tell you what I was called but the bottom line was that folk weren't in the least bit worried because they could just ship it in from abroad, farmers were all grabbing stinkers and nothing was going to change.
Then we saw fuel prices rise, the pound lose value, and up, up and away food prices went.

But we still have little or no support for farming, commercial or organic, although we have seen a huge swing towards growing your own etc, but we are still extremely vulnerable and especially so since fuel is set to rise once again.

SkepticOne

Mistymaud wrote: »

You clearly haven't read these threads at all, have you?

For starters, for me, it's not a business, it's a lifestyle.

That lifestyle, although it may be difficult, is one of my own choosing because I, personally, believe in protecting the environment, reducing impact on diminishing resources and rearing animals in the best way I can - which, I think I'm correct in saying, is the way ecologists want farming to go.

And then you say it is a choice as a business and if it's going to be difficult then not to make it. Do you want organic or not???

My point is, if you want organic farming and increased animal welfare then it actually requires more input than regular commercial farming ... that's it. [/quote]The thing is, it was you who said that we consume too much and put too much pressure on farmers to produce too much. I'm inclined to agree with that. What I'm having trouble with is reconciling this with the idea that you should then subsidise this thing that people are consuming too much of.

Reducing subsidies may encourage people to waste less ... or it may leave the market open for excessive imports. My bet is on the second. Take away subsidies from Irish commercial farmers and all you are doing is killing the industry and leaving yourself open to possibly controlling competition.

It is very unlikely that the industry would be killed off. It would have to become much more efficient, that is true, but to mitigate this somewhat, land prices would come down significantly.

Do you think if you took away the farming subsidy from commercial farmers they would suddenly all turn to organic and that the consumer would pay more for organic than commercial (sometimes called organic) imports, because I don't.

No I don't think that either. But a subsidy for non-polluting forms of agriculture would tip the balance in favour of that type of agriculture.

SkepticOne

Mistymaud wrote: »

I went on a UK forum, must be well over 4 years ago now, and said the unthinkable 'food prices are going to rise.'
Apparently it made me the devil incarnate and, unlike this forum where McCarrick comes on and strictly intervenes, I got seriously lambasted.

Now I'd made these comments purely on observation: I'd seen top soils having to be imported to 'rural' Lincolnshire and where they weren't brought in fields were decimated with sandblow to the point they'd grow nothing more than ragwort even when they'd been ploughed, fertilized and weeded.
I'd talked to farmers about yields remaining the same per acreage despite increasing the use of fertilizers etc because the land had been so drained of all nutrients.
I'd watching the oil market fluctuate and figured prices would be on the increase.

All this said one thing to me - we were in for price hikes and should support our own food industry.

Well, all hell broke lose, can't tell you what I was called but the bottom line was that folk weren't in the least bit worried because they could just ship it in from abroad, farmers were all grabbing stinkers and nothing was going to change.
Then we saw fuel prices rise, the pound lose value, and up, up and away food prices went.

I can't comment on what others said on a different forum. I have already said that I would expect prices to rise somewhat.

But we still have little or no support for farming, commercial or organic, although we have seen a huge swing towards growing your own etc, but we are still extremely vulnerable and especially so since fuel is set to rise once again.

Little or no support? Can you tell me what proportion of a beef farmers income comes from subsidy as opposed to the market?

Mistymaud

I certainly agree that non-polluting forms of agriculture should be supported - but that brings me back to an old question of mine specifically relating to sheep farmers - what exactly is the current difference between an organic/commercial sheep?
The only difference I can think of is that organic sheep are fed organic nuts. Maybe, just maybe, organic lamb has to be grazed on organic land, but I think most will agree that the majority of sheep grazing land is usually untouched.

The thing is, you are still talking about commerical sheep breeds, of this I am pretty much certain, because you don't see many non-commercial meats being advertised and they are certainly different to commercial breeds in the meat (and amount of it) they produce.

The bottom line is, when it comes to sheep, I very much doubt there is any great difference between organic and commercial - as it stands at the moment - and to take the subsidy away from one side and give it to the other will show very little difference to anything at all - including damage done by over grazing, all it would do is hurt Irish sheep farming in general.

On the public/purchasing front.
Although we have seen a rise in food prices here, and correspondingly people wanting to grow their own, eat better etc (which has been very much media driven if anything) this has gone hand in hand with money saving, which in itself can be contradictory and you find on the UK boards people chasing 'cheap food' left, right and centre.
Then organic goes out the window. They don't care if chickens are reared in cages or whatever, 'heck, it's only a chicken,' if an organic one costs £8 and they can find two for a fiver in Tesco.

Really we are trying to raise awareness too late in the day and STILL nothing is being done about it.

Mistymaud

I wasn't talking about financial support I was talking about public support.

Birdnuts

Keeperlit wrote: »

No need to defend the farmers relig or smmccarrick......bidnuts is only here to piss people off......sure what else did he/she expect by putting a post like that in the farming section..........also you keep referring to eco tourism.....In my locality there is a hostel specifically aimed at this....Very well run and i think its a great idea however it lies idle for almost 8 months of the year.......the local sheep farmer however needs fertiliser,feedstuffs and a huge amount of miscellanous items throughout the year.They buy tractors machinery etc.They sell produce in the local marts.The sheep farmer that does not deserve this 25 million is keeping hundreds of jobs in rural ireland.......Im all for ecotourism but its not goin to sustain the people of rural Ireland......




And referring back to previous posts...You aim to mock people but is you that is misinterpreting people....I never said anything about sheep eating rhodedendron.....I said farmers would have no call to maintain their lands from Scrub and weeds like them if they didnt have sheep

I don't care for your arrogant abusive tone. You obviously don't know the difference between the carrying capacity of land and the reckless overgrazing that has taken place in many mountainous areas due to ill-conceived headage grants. You've also chosen to conveniently ignore the points I made in earlier posts about this issue.

So what if sheep farmers are buying tractors and the like. I wish i had thousands stuffed into my pocket from EU taxpayers every year with little or nothing asked for in return. No wonder there is a growing urban rural divide in these country thanx to the arrogance of the IFA types who give (regrettably) farmers a bad name:mad:

Birdnuts

smccarrick wrote: »

I gave an appropriate example- New Zealand lamb- versus organic Irish lamb- where in blind taste tests consumers actually cannot tell the difference. Using an example of weeks old produce versus 'delicious tender young carrot barely a day harvested'- is falling into the same marketting blackhole as that website. You are using the most extreme example you can come up with- to try to prove a point- you are not comparing an average product with an average product. Wander into any supermarket and you will see bags of brushed or washed veg- normally with an indication of when and where it was harvested, along with a 'display until' sticker- alongside organic produce (often in a different section for marketing reasons). Sure- you may have a smaller retailer somewhere- or a British multiple who has imported produce from the other side of the globe- they are not the norm however.

All depends on how strict your organic standards are and what species its applied too. Obviously lamb from mountain pastures in Ireland is basically organic anyway and certainly is preferable to a simliar product from New Zealand given the amount of CO2 produced in its transportation. Indeed the fact that Ireland is importing such products when we've plenty of our own highlights the unsustainablity of such activities for the planet and our own well-being(both financial and otherwise). I eat irish lamb whether its organic or not for the above reasons but Irish intensively reared poultry and pork is a totally different game and can't be compared with sheep or indeed most cattle farming. Thats why i always choose at least free-rage eggs and chicken where organic in not availiable because its better on everything from taste, nutrition, welfare then the standard battery production.

Birdnuts

pakalasa wrote: »

Interesting Post.

There is nothing that gets to farmers more than so called emvironmentalists dictating policy. :

I think thats far from the situation in this country. The IFA are probably the most powerfull and successfull lobby group in the state. What annoys me about them is that they only seem to be interested in advancing the cause of big intesive farmers and have fought tooth and nail against every little bit of progress that has been made in environmental protection in this country(and god knows were still one of the worst in the EU in this area:(). Currently there going mad because local authorities want them to stop operating slurry tankers right next to public water supples. Over the last 20 years I've known many rural business's such as B and B's, activity centres etc. that had to shut down for periods and lost serious money due to their water supples being contaminated with slurry. What worse is it leads to all farmers being tarred with the same brush which is totally unfair(I've plenty of farming connections myself) yet the IFA and their fellow travellers don't appear to care. This is unfortunate since farmers would have alot more visible support from the public for legitimate causes like the scandalous profiteering of large multiples like Tesco on the backs of dairy farmers etc.

Mistymaud

Birdnuts wrote: »

All depends on how strict your organic standards are and what species its applied too. Obviously lamb from mountain pastures in Ireland is basically organic anyway and certainly is preferable to a simliar product from New Zealand given the amount of CO2 produced in its transportation. Indeed the fact that Ireland is importing such products when we've plenty of our own highlights the unsustainablity of such activities for the planet and our own well-being(both financial and otherwise). I eat irish lamb whether its organic or not for the above reasons but Irish intensively reared poultry and pork is a totally different game and can't be compared with sheep or indeed most cattle farming. Thats why i always choose at least free-rage eggs and chicken where organic in not availiable because its better on everything from taste, nutrition, welfare then the standard battery production.

You see Birdnuts, this is where I have a little bit of a problem with the title of the thread:-
On the one hand you are intimating that sheep farmers, because they are not producing organic lamb don't deserve the 25m Euro, but on the other, there is apparently very little difference between a lot, if not most, Irish lamb and imported NZ organic lamb - in fact it's all semantics.

If we did get a definative answer as to what organic lamb is, and then ascertained that 80% of Irish lamb falls under that banner whether it is stamped 'organic' or not, does that then mean you would change the title of your thread to 'Sheep Farmers Deserve 25m Euro.'

The thing is, what would have changed? The farmers would have still got their grant, the countryside would still be overgrazed, which I thought were your two main complaints. Once again, I stand that the problem is not farming but over consumption.

Then you go shifting the goal posts and start talking about chicken and pork - you have no argument from me there regarding both animal welfare and taste when it comes to the term 'organic' at least not on an idealistic basis.
But really that is another discussion and one, that perhaps even more so than the sheep argument, relies heavily on consumer demand.
You say you buy free range where ever you can, I have no reason to doubt this, many people are trying to. And, providing you make sure you are buying other products such as biscuits, cakes, ice-cream, mayonnnaise and many, many, other things that also contain derivative organic chicken products, such as eggs, fat etc, then I would consider you to be more aware than most.
But this won't stop your countryside heather being eaten, this won't stop the corncrakes disappearing, in fact it's not actually relevant to your original argument at all.

Birdnuts

Mistymaud wrote: »

You see Birdnuts, this is where I have a little bit of a problem with the title of the thread:-
On the one hand you are intimating that sheep farmers, because they are not producing organic lamb don't deserve the 25m Euro, but on the other, there is apparently very little difference between a lot, if not most, Irish lamb and imported NZ organic lamb - in fact it's all semantics.

If we did get a definative answer as to what organic lamb is, and then ascertained that 80% of Irish lamb falls under that banner whether it is stamped 'organic' or not, does that then mean you would change the title of your thread to 'Sheep Farmers Deserve 25m Euro.'

The thing is, what would have changed? The farmers would have still got their grant, the countryside would still be overgrazed, which I thought were your two main complaints. Once again, I stand that the problem is not farming but over consumption.

Then you go shifting the goal posts and start talking about chicken and pork - you have no argument from me there regarding both animal welfare and taste when it comes to the term 'organic' at least not on an idealistic basis.
But really that is another discussion and one, that perhaps even more so than the sheep argument, relies heavily on consumer demand.
You say you buy free range where ever you can, I have no reason to doubt this, many people are trying to. And, providing you make sure you are buying other products such as biscuits, cakes, ice-cream, mayonnnaise and many, many, other things that also contain derivative organic chicken products, such as eggs, fat etc, then I would consider you to be more aware than most.
But this won't stop your countryside heather being eaten, this won't stop the corncrakes disappearing, in fact it's not actually relevant to your original argument at all.

If you read the start of the thread you will see that my original argument was about why should sheep farmers be handed out money for nothing when other farm schemes with much more merit such the FYP, Burren and native forestry schemes appear to be eithier cut or short of cash. Because I also mentioned sustainable agriculture, organic farming also came up and others expanded on that element. And yes I do try and minimize waste and overconsumption in my day to day living and spending and purchase fair trade/sustainable products were available.