milk quota and windmills

caff

If the herd increases with the lifting of the quota, then methane emissions increase the country would surely miss its carbon targets and get fined. There is a risk that the government paying the fine would open the country to claims in the wto of farm subsidies wouldn't it? But would farmers be able to offset there emissions with wind turbines?

darragh_haven

caff wrote: »

If the herd increases with the lifting of the quota, then methane emissions increase the country would surely miss its carbon targets and get fined. There is a risk that the government paying the fine would open the country to claims in the wto of farm subsidies wouldn't it? But would farmers be able to offset there emissions with wind turbines?

I'm involved in renewable enery as well as being a farmer.

Ireland wouldn't meet its 2020 renewable enery targets regardless of what happens to dairy. I think the powers that be are willing to pay the resulting fines rather than face the problem. Kicking the can down the road for the next lot in power to deal with.....

caff

darragh_haven wrote: »

I'm involved in renewable enery as well as being a farmer.

Ireland wouldn't meet its 2020 renewable enery targets regardless of what happens to dairy. I think the powers that be are willing to pay the resulting fines rather than face the problem. Kicking the can down the road for the next lot in power to deal with.....

But is there a risk of a case claiming that the fines paid by the government are subsidies?

merryberry

caff wrote: »

But would farmers be able to offset there emissions with wind turbines?

Unfortunately no. There is no sectoral target for agricultural. This -20% emissions target by 2020 is for sectors that are not part of the emissions trading sector (ets). Energy is part of the ets so wind tubines would assist in cutting emissions from energy emissions and help increase our share of renewable energy.

As a previous poster correctly said our 2020 target for the non-ets (this includes agri, transport among others) is non attainable. The problem is it is very very difficult to reduce emissions from agriculture like methane emissions. The only reminant the doesn't emit methane is a dead one...trying to stop reminant emissions is like trying to reverse evolution. Not possible. So this is the problem-transport has the technology to reduce its emissions which is good but agriculture has limited mitgation potential. Both sectors are expected to contribute towards this -20% emissions reduction target...doesn't sound fair to me. What really bugs me is that forest sequestration is credited to all sectors in society when really afforestation is only happening on agricultural land.

freedominacup

merryberry wrote: »

Unfortunately no. There is no sectoral target for agricultural. This -20% emissions target by 2020 is for sectors that are not part of the emissions trading sector (ets). Energy is part of the ets so wind tubines would assist in cutting emissions from energy emissions and help increase our share of renewable energy.

As a previous poster correctly said our 2020 target for the non-ets (this includes agri, transport among others) is non attainable. The problem is it is very very difficult to reduce emissions from agriculture like methane emissions. The only reminant the doesn't emit methane is a dead one...trying to stop reminant emissions is like trying to reverse evolution. Not possible. So this is the problem-transport has the technology to reduce its emissions which is good but agriculture has limited mitgation potential. Both sectors are expected to contribute towards this -20% emissions reduction target...doesn't sound fair to me. What really bugs me is that forest sequestration is credited to all sectors in society when really afforestation is only happening on agricultural land.

Merry, you seem to know a bit about the subject. What are the net emissions from a standard/average dairy ha in this country? Taking into account the amount of CO2 growing grass would absorb. Ag surely can argue that it is in a different category to air travel for example. If I burn a tonne of jet fuel you will produce X amount of CO2 with no correlating reduction in emissions intrinsic to the operation of the plane. A cow will emit a certain amount of methane and CO2 as part of her day to day existence but the acre she's grazing will be absorbing plenty of CO2 daily as well.

The other question is why is fruit and veg and cereal production perceived as being so virtuous? Surely the emissions from this type of production are quite high. Machinery operation, plus the fossil fuel usage in fert and chem production not to mention the amount of CO2 released every time ground is ploughed.

merryberry

freedominacup wrote: »

Merry, you seem to know a bit about the subject. What are the net emissions from a standard/average dairy ha in this country? Taking into account the amount of CO2 growing grass would absorb. Ag surely can argue that it is in a different category to air travel for example. If I burn a tonne of jet fuel you will produce X amount of CO2 with no correlating reduction in emissions intrinsic to the operation of the plane. A cow will emit a certain amount of methane and CO2 as part of her day to day existence but the acre she's grazing will be absorbing plenty of CO2 daily as well.

The other question is why is fruit and veg and cereal production perceived as being so virtuous? Surely the emissions from this type of production are quite high. Machinery operation, plus the fossil fuel usage in fert and chem production not to mention the amount of CO2 released every time ground is ploughed.

Average emissions from a dairy cow are 1kg CO2e per kg of milk (Teagasc estimate that this ranges from 0.8 to 1.8 kgs CO2e). A 5000L cow is producing about 5150 kgs of milk or 5150kg CO2e. Dairy farm stocked at 2LU/ha is potentially emitting 10300kgs CO2e (10 tonnes of CO2e say). Unlike forestry, carbon sequestration potential for grassland is not being credited against Irelands national emissions profile. The science is being developed but it is estimated that with good grassland management, soils can sequester 5/6t CO2e/ha per year. Good potential exists but it’s not being counted just yet.

Cereals are a big concern but more so on the continent where cereal production is much higher than Ireland. As you correctly said, stored C is release when land is ploughed. This was probably one the reasons why greening was introduced in the new CAP.

Blackgrass

merryberry wrote: »

Average emissions from a dairy cow are 1kg CO2e per kg of milk (Teagasc estimate that this ranges from 0.8 to 1.8 kgs CO2e). A 5000L cow is producing about 5150 kgs of milk or 5150kg CO2e. Dairy farm stocked at 2LU/ha is potentially emitting 10300kgs CO2e (10 tonnes of CO2e say). Unlike forestry, carbon sequestration potential for grassland is not being credited against Irelands national emissions profile. The science is being developed but it is estimated that with good grassland management, soils can sequester 5/6t CO2e/ha per year. Good potential exists but it’s not being counted just yet.

Cereals are a big concern but more so on the continent where cereal production is much higher than Ireland. As you correctly said, stored C is release when land is ploughed. This was probably one the reasons why greening was introduced in the new CAP.

In what way would cereals be affected down the line?
Alot of farms are now turning to cover cropping to reduce nutrient losses over winter by forming a sort of 'soil amour' to reduce effect of heavy rain and erosion. Knock on effect is soils for 1st time in 30 years + gaining more OM content and more carbon.

merryberry

Blackgrass wrote: »

In what way would cereals be affected down the line?
Alot of farms are now turning to cover cropping to reduce nutrient losses over winter by forming a sort of 'soil amour' to reduce effect of heavy rain and erosion. Knock on effect is soils for 1st time in 30 years + gaining more OM content and more carbon.

Firstly, I wouldn’t claim to be an expert. I’ve no idea how all this will impact on cereals. I don’t think anyone does. What we do know is that we don’t have a lot of tillage when compared to other countries, so we’re small fish, but we're very good at producing cereals, with some of the highest yields in the world. Worst case scenario would be a ban on turning grassland over to cereals. There is provision for this the previous and current CAP framework if where the % of permanent grassland falls below a threshold. There are voluntary and mandatory measures to improve C content of tillage soils and you have mentioned these but if we are ploughing, we are removing C. Do we mintill? Then we have the problem with grass weeds and hence more sprays!!! How do you win!!!

Blackgrass

merryberry wrote: »

Firstly, I wouldn’t claim to be an expert. I’ve no idea how all this will impact on cereals. I don’t think anyone does. What we do know is that we don’t have a lot of tillage when compared to other countries, so we’re small fish, but we're very good at producing cereals, with some of the highest yields in the world. Worst case scenario would be a ban on turning grassland over to cereals. There is provision for this the previous and current CAP framework if where the % of permanent grassland falls below a threshold. There are voluntary and mandatory measures to improve C content of tillage soils and you have mentioned these but if we are ploughing, we are removing C. Do we mintill? Then we have the problem with grass weeds and hence more sprays!!! How do you win!!!

I remember about the permanent pasture regs s we had to crop a few fields hat have always been grass o get around it, think couldn't have been worked for previous 20yrs? iirc. Keep options open for future.
As for cultivations alot starting to go to Drectdrill as too lazy to work the ground a few times , but with grassweed issue plenty will say ploughing worked with BG yet when they could stubble burn and plough it was still as big an issue. Not based in Ireland and cropping is what puts food on the table here.

blue5000

Cows belch methane when they chew the cud. Methane is something like 22 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Glas is attempting to reduce ag CO2 emissions by paying farmers for species rich grassland. Nobody wants to pay us for sinking carbon into forestry. I honestly don't know why. Maybe it's because forestry emits more greenhouse gases in the first 15 years after planting than it sinks. I ain't no expert in this either, but there is no way possible that Ireland will make it's 2020 reductions on target. However it is possible that the construction industry will achieve the 2020 target, you can guess why.

Birdnuts

caff wrote: »

If the herd increases with the lifting of the quota, then methane emissions increase the country would surely miss its carbon targets and get fined. There is a risk that the government paying the fine would open the country to claims in the wto of farm subsidies wouldn't it? But would farmers be able to offset there emissions with wind turbines?

A lot of negotiating still to be done at EU level regarding carbon targets for each country so things may change in regards to Irelands position over the coming year. In any case wind turbines don't save much carbon cos peak demand for power only occasionally overlaps with suitable wind conditions, which means you need back up generation from conventionals most of the time(tonight being a prime example with hardly a breath of wind across the country!!). I think the likes of biogas from farm waste etc. has far more potential in this area

http://www.hortweek.com/biogas-installed-grower-armagh/edibles/article/1340591

Farm forestry is also a good way of carbon capture when done in a sustainable way. Re-wetting and vegetating exhausted cut-over bogs is another potential way of capturing significant amounts of Carbon

ganmo

Why are we looking at the producors to reduce co2?
We could easily become more efficient by reducing food waste in homes

Capercaillie

blue5000 wrote: »

Cows belch methane when they chew the cud. Methane is something like 22 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

.

Research being done to reduce methane production in cattle by altering feed intake and genetic selection of cattle.

Sam Kade

I wonder do polar bears fart they're crying about them supposedly disappearing and moaning about cattle.

Capercaillie

Sam Kade wrote: »

I wonder do polar bears fart they're crying about them supposedly disappearing and moaning about cattle.

20,000 polar bear versus 1.3 Billion cattle worldwide. I'd say that the cattle produce more methane.

Sam Kade

Capercaillie wrote: »

20,000 polar bear versus 1.3 Billion cattle worldwide. I'd say that the cattle produce more methane.

Where did you pull 20000 from. Cattle have been around a long time, America was heavily populated with bison and buffalo in the early 1800's.

Capercaillie

Sam Kade wrote: »

Where did you pull 20000 from. Cattle have been around a long time, America was heavily populated with bison and buffalo in the early 1800's.

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/ Polar bear numbers.
20-30 million bison/buffalo at peak, no comparison to cattle numbers today.