organic farming

Say my name

blue5000 wrote: »

Teagasc aren't going to change tactics while IFI is one of their golden geese.

Ah they are being changed though.

In all the decades of teagasc and before them there's never been talk of reducing nitrogen usage ..until now. There's been that barrel of nutrients imagery to advise on optimizing output. But never talk of cutting back.
Now it's forced alright from outside to meet emissions targets and we still have the vanguard action to generically call reducing nitrogen usage reduces output.
The actions they're pinning their flag to are LESS slurry spreading and clover. Why? because it's quantifiable from an accounting point of view and it's easy to understand to farmers.

Now if the likes of John Kempf and his musings were to be recommended by teagasc it would be a total embarrassment for the advisors who came through the ranks and gave and give the advise still today.
I note the secondary agricultural industry here are saying the consumer requires Grass fed over organic. It's no surprise when the same industry sells the goods to grow that grass.

It's up to the individual farmer to make their own mind up and make a living. How you do that is the same as always. Minimize the expense. Maximize the income. How you do that is through knowledge.

Birdnuts

Say my name wrote: »

Ah they are being changed though.

In all the decades of teagasc and before them there's never been talk of reducing nitrogen usage ..until now. There's been that barrel of nutrients imagery to advise on optimizing output. But never talk of cutting back.
Now it's forced alright from outside to meet emissions targets and we still have the vanguard action to generically call reducing nitrogen usage reduces output.
The actions they're pinning their flag to are LESS slurry spreading and clover. Why? because it's quantifiable from an accounting point of view and it's easy to understand to farmers.

Now if the likes of John Kempf and his musings were to be recommended by teagasc it would be a total embarrassment for the advisors who came through the ranks and gave and give the advise still today.
I note the secondary agricultural industry here are saying the consumer requires Grass fed over organic. It's no surprise when the same industry sells the goods to grow that grass.

It's up to the individual farmer to make their own mind up and make a living. How you do that is the same as always. Minimize the expense. Maximize the income. How you do that is through knowledge.

I'm reading a book atm which you may be familiar with Grass,Soil,Hope - should be compulsory reading for those shaping Ag policy in this country

Say my name

Birdnuts wrote: »

I'm reading a book atm which you may be familiar with Grass,Soil,Hope - should be compulsory reading for those shaping Ag policy in this country

Sounds interesting.

No i haven't read that one yet.

I'm hearing a tillage advocate on another medium. Now this guy would be totally pure tillage. Blame the grain buyers. Woe is me. Tillage is the saviour of the country. We're carbon and environmental friendly.
He might be correct only for he ploughs his ground to the ditch. Releasing carbon. Hacks his ditch to the clay. His soil washes into the streams. He then would be an advocate for every spray going. Hates livestock and wouldn't dream of them on his farm. And gets kicks against any dairy farmer going.

I'll look into that book. Maybe make a present of it.

Say my name

Say my name wrote: »

Sounds interesting.

No i haven't read that one yet.

I'm hearing a tillage advocate on another medium. Now this guy would be totally pure tillage. Blame the grain buyers. Woe is me. Tillage is the saviour of the country. We're carbon and environmental friendly.
He might be correct only for he ploughs his ground to the ditch. Releasing carbon. Hacks his ditch to the clay. His soil washes into the streams. He then would be an advocate for every spray going. Hates livestock and wouldn't dream of them on his farm. And gets kicks against any dairy farmer going.

I'll look into that book. Maybe make a present of it.

I got popular fast on another medium, probably the same, for saying if I had tillage quality land I wouldn't need or take subs.

Say my name

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I got popular fast on another medium, probably the same, for saying if I had tillage quality land I wouldn't need or take subs.

Ah we luves ya here anyway.

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

I got popular fast on another medium, probably the same, for saying if I had tillage quality land I wouldn't need or take subs.

I think you're being a bit optimistic there,
If you're doing well at farming , subs enable you to do it better, to be better equipped, makes life easier.
If you're not a good farmer they keep ya out of trouble.

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

I think you're being a bit optimistic there,
If you're doing well at farming , subs enable you to do it better, to be better equipped, makes life easier.
If you're not a good farmer they keep ya out of trouble.

I'm being realistic. Farmers have two very broad choices, broaden their education and seize opportunity or stay in the conventional/subs model. I prefer the former.

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm being realistic. Farmers have two very broad choices, broaden their education and seize opportunity or stay in the conventional/subs model. I prefer the former.

A lot of farmers would forego subs to enable them to farm without regulation, I know there's one on here that is farming without subs partly because it enables him to farm at any stocking rate, I know every farmer has to farm to the rules but in practise those that don't submit BPS and maps aren't monitored properly.
Surely that has to be an advantage of subs that the environment has to be somewhat protected.

Just edited to say I'[d agree there's loads of options for people to get educated and move on rather than what they're at against factories, That's just childish

Water John

Farming without subs and producing all you like, is a fools errand if the product only gets a crap price.

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

A lot of farmers would forego subs to enable them to farm without regulation, I know there's one on here that is farming without subs partly because it enables him to farm at any stocking rate, I know every farmer has to farm to the rules but in practise those that don't submit BPS and maps aren't monitored properly.
Surely that has to be an advantage of subs that the environment has to be somewhat protected.

Just edited to say I'[d agree there's loads of options for people to get educated and move on rather than what they're at against factories, That's just childish

Subs protect the environment now? That'll make the comics front page this week. That's not an argument I'll be joining one way or another as it's pointless to my own advancement

It wasn't what I was saying. If I owned tillage land, I wouldn't need or want subs to farm and make profit. Just as simple as that.

Water John

Quitter you'd need a lot of it to make a living from conventional tillage or supply organic oats to someone like Flahavans.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

Quitter you'd need a lot of it to make a living from conventional tillage or supply organic oats to someone like Flahavans.

You're making the same miscalculation they did on Twitter. I never said a word about carrying out tillage. I said "If I had tillage quality land..." Open the options instead of narrowing them.

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

Subs protect the environment now? That'll make the comics front page this week. That's not an argument I'll be joining one way or another as it's pointless to my own advancement

It wasn't what I was saying. If I owned tillage land, I wouldn't need or want subs to farm and make profit. Just as simple as that.

I didn't need the subs to make profit, but I wouldn't be making a minimum wage without them. Well managed sheep are profitable just not profitable enough.

Water John

wrangler wrote: »

I didn't need the subs to make profit, but I wouldn't be making a minimum wage without them. Well managed sheep are profitable just not profitable enough.

The price of almost all produce is being held at that subsistence level (excuse the pun).

Say my name

blue5000 wrote: »

Teagasc aren't going to change tactics while IFI is one of their golden geese.

Just by coincidence the book "Terra Preta" by Scheub, Pieplow, Schmidt and Draper came in the post today.

Read the last paragraph on the first page shown. The next page just about mirrors here too.

Gawddawggonnit

endainoz wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/farming/arid-40201664.html?type=amp

"Uptake of Organic farming is very low"

Have a real issue with that line considering the amount of people that were refused entry to the scheme in 2018.

There was a scheme here a few years back where you would get a maximum of €15k per year for three years during the transition period (3yrs transition period here). The ‘envelope’ was empty in a matter of months...didn’t slow the pace of transition one jot.

Interestingly, it’s the large scale tillage operations that are charging gung-ho into organic...

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

I didn't need the subs to make profit, but I wouldn't be making a minimum wage without them. Well managed sheep are profitable just not profitable enough.

I'm not telling you what to do. I'm saying if I had such land I wouldn't want or need subs

endainoz

Has anyone here used organic fertilizer for their meadows for silage? I have been debating getting a couple of tonnes of Organic feet from Fruit hill farm.

minerleague

Something that struck me recently re organic beef production is that the typical customer for organic is more likely than general population to be thinking about eating less / no meat !

Water John

minerleague wrote: »

Something that struck me recently re organic beef production is that the typical customer for organic is more likely than general population to be thinking about eating less / no meat !

Basically you're saying meat eaters will eat any ould sh1te. Well you're quite incorrect and suggest you head for the Vegan forum, to engage with like minded folk.
Read the other day that, no civilisation tribe or society did not use meat as a source and maybe the Keto diet low carbs/sugar is the correct option:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jan/03/the-case-for-keto-review-why-a-full-fat-diet-should-be-on-the-menu

Base price

minerleague wrote: »

Something that struck me recently re organic beef production is that the typical customer for organic is more likely than general population to be thinking about eating less / no meat !

No I wouldn't think so. My SIL only buys organic chicken and beef but due to it's high cost she wouldn't consume as much meat as I would. She prefers to pay the premium knowing that she is helping the environment whilst supporting local organic producers.

I don't buy organic due to it's high cost and the fact that I produce quality beef that I should get paid more for but that is argument for another day.

yosemitesam1

endainoz wrote: »

Has anyone here used organic fertilizer for their meadows for silage? I have been debating getting a couple of tonnes of Organic feet from Fruit hill farm.

What were you looking at? Those organic pellet type fertilizers look very expensive for what they'll provide

minerleague

Water John wrote: »

Basically you're saying meat eaters will eat any ould sh1te. Well you're quite incorrect and suggest you head for the Vegan forum, to engage with like minded folk.
Read the other day that, no civilisation tribe or society did not use meat as a source and maybe the Keto diet low carbs/sugar is the correct option:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jan/03/the-case-for-keto-review-why-a-full-fat-diet-should-be-on-the-menu

Dont know where you got that ?? Dont agree with vegan mentality at all. Humans have evolved eating meat. It was just something that struck me ( no great or deep thinking ) but proportionally i'd say people who buy organic would be following the line that beef farming is bad for planet ( not all by any stretch )

minerleague

Base price wrote: »

No I wouldn't think so. My SIL only buys organic chicken and beef but due to it's high cost she wouldn't consume as much meat as I would. She prefers to pay the premium knowing that she is helping the environment whilst supporting local organic producers.

I don't buy organic due to it's high cost and the fact that I produce quality beef that I should get paid more for but that is argument for another day.

This is what i'm talking about in part

endainoz

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

What were you looking at? Those organic pellet type fertilizers look very expensive for what they'll provide

It would be the type yeah, with the idea of hopefully putting some nutrients into the soil while also adding mixed species into the sward. It would also be getting slurry on the same ground.

While they are a bit expensive, if it meant an extra 30 to 40 extra bales of assume it would be worth it? Maybe not.

endainoz

minerleague wrote: »

This is what i'm talking about in part

It would still work out better for the producer to get a premium price for their organic products less offer than buying supermarket conventional stuff more often.

There is certainly room for both to exist though, I have bought a few organic meat boxes and while the price was high, the quality was impossible to beat. I still buy the conventional stuff, but after getting into the organic scheme, I thought it would be good to support organic producers. Practice what you preach and all that.

minerleague

endainoz wrote: »

It would still work out better for the producer to get a premium price for their organic products less offer than buying supermarket conventional stuff more often.

There is certainly room for both to exist though, I have bought a few organic meat boxes and while the price was high, the quality was impossible to beat. I still buy the conventional stuff, but after getting into the organic scheme, I thought it would be good to support organic producers. Practice what you preach and all that.

Again i'm not knocking organic farming or people who buy organic produce ( but i think i read somewhere that certain organic meat products are selling for no premium over conventional product)

Water John

Miner, I accept your position is as you say. what may have been said is that beef fro some organic animals is sold to conventional processors and thus doesn't get a premium price.
With beef the difference in price paid to the producer would be in the order of 20/25%.
White meat like chicken would be fed organic grains and this pushes up the costs substantially. Beef cattle would get very little organic grain. It just wouldn't pay the producer to use it.

Markcheese

endainoz wrote: »

It would be the type yeah, with the idea of hopefully putting some nutrients into the soil while also adding mixed species into the sward. It would also be getting slurry on the same ground.

While they are a bit expensive, if it meant an extra 30 to 40 extra bales of assume it would be worth it? Maybe not.

You'd want to have a good look at what's in them ( and its availability to grass at different temps and times of the year.. ) , and how that ties in with what your ground is short of at times.. could those nutrients be provided more cheaply easily from another source ?
Can you mark out 2 near identical small paddocks and do a trial run for a year ?

endainoz

Markcheese wrote: »

You'd want to have a good look at what's in them ( and its availability to grass at different temps and times of the year.. ) , and how that ties in with what your ground is short of at times.. could those nutrients be provided more cheaply easily from another source ?
Can you mark out 2 near identical small paddocks and do a trial run for a year ?

It doesn't seem like many people use them so, in the summer of 2019 the growth was quite good with no feet. The crop of 2020 was quite poor, had put it down to the drought but it would have been interesting to know if pellet fert would make any difference. A deep soil analysis is needed for sure.