Climate deal.

Pacoa

Was filling in my slurry export form today and the thought struck me.
With this new climate deal just signed/agreed in paris, will we have to fill in forms in the future for cows farts as well as their slurry?

djmc

Hopefully not but sometimes people making up the regulations make ones that are total nonsense.
All the same something has to be done about climate change with the rainfall levels in the last few years.
It could get more difficult for lads expanding or intensively farming as nitrate levels will only be adjusted one way.

Dawggone

I'm hoping that there will be a big push into green energy here.
Maize is excellent at sequestering carbon once you don't plough for establishment. So, striptill the maize, build a digester, and supply the grid. No probs with fluctuating commodity markets, just a nice steady RoI.


Here's hoping.

Pacoa

Yes here's hoping there will be benefits for farmers rather than penalties like anaerobic digestion and higher forestry grants etc.

_Brian

Was talking to someone earlier and they say we should be ready for levi's on farm activity.
Possibly on mart, factory & dairy activity.

Would an increased forestry premium be attractive to many here ?? Can't say we wouldn't run the numbers but it would need to be a sweet deal to plant any land here.

pedigree 6

I hear an taisce on the news talking about reducing carbon usage in Ireland the main targets being agriculture and transport. Is food production being targeted in other countries? If you just impose carbon taxes on agriculture will it not just reduce the amount of food being produced and make it more expensive for people to buy? Maybe there wont be carbon taxes and we'll move away from fossil fuels and drive methane powered tractors or hydrogen powered tractors or wind turbines on every farm and electric tractors or maybe we'll move back to draft horses again.:D

I was just wondering are they targeting agriculture here because it's the biggest industry in the country and an easy target in that it won't effect the civil servant in the office in Dublin. We produce enough food in this country I think for 35 million people. There's a lot of countries that can't produce they're own food or not enough to feed themselves. If they impose carbon taxes on agriculture do they not just risk food security around the world. Also who gets these carbon taxes and does it not just become a money making scheme for people.

What is carbon is it carbon dioxide or carbon fuels like coal, petrol etc. Growing grass absorbs more carbon dioxide than grass in the winter although it's still growing now. When you put fertiliser on grass it makes it grow faster and the faster it grows the more carbon dioxide it absorbs.

Anyway I just hear agriculture mentioned in the media here and I think they're picking an easy target as the powers that be know they'll always be able to afford food even if other people can not.

barnaman

For Beef most likely a levy at the meat factory base on age and or flat fee. Age would be most likely further pressure to kill stock younger!

CloughCasey1

barnaman wrote: »

For Beef most likely a levy at the meat factory base on age and or flat fee. Age would be most likely further pressure to kill stock younger!

There might be the possibility of offsetting carbon credits against wind turbines or pv solar onto the national grid.

Sam Kade

djmc wrote: »

Hopefully not but sometimes people making up the regulations make ones that are total nonsense.
All the same something has to be done about climate change with the rainfall levels in the last few years.
It could get more difficult for lads expanding or intensively farming as nitrate levels will only be adjusted one way.

Lets all pay carbon taxes to make this rain go away.

ganmo

One idea of mine would be to ban print advertising, leaflets etc. think of all the paper that goes straight into the bin

djmc

Sam Kade wrote: »

Lets all pay carbon taxes to make this rain go away.

You can't deny that the climate is changing that is proven beyond doubt.
We are now getting heavier rain over shorter a time period than I can remember over the last 40 years.
Whether or not people are causing it or not is another debate as climate has always been changing throughout history but of late it seems to be changing a lot faster.
Carbon tax is just going to be another way of taking money from us and do little for the environment but that doesn't mean we should give up and do nothing either.
As far as I know they want to protect food security so how its going to impact agriculture I don't know.
http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/ifa-says-climate-change-agreement-safeguards-food-production/

hurling_lad

barnaman wrote: »

For Beef most likely a levy at the meat factory base on age and or flat fee. Age would be most likely further pressure to kill stock younger!

That sounds like a fairly plausible outcome alright, as well as some kind of a charge on dairy cow numbers.

Presumably New Zealand will have similar issues to us, albeit that our targets will be part of the EU approach.

Suckler

ganmo wrote: »

One idea of mine would be to ban print advertising, leaflets etc. think of all the paper that goes straight into the bin

It's about the only thing keeping An Post going I'd say. Utter waste though you're right.

I said

Some expert on radio 1 reckons to get rid of all the part time beef farmers would help Ireland's commitment to this deal

_Brian

I said wrote: »

Some expert on radio 1 reckons to get rid of all the part time beef farmers would help Ireland's commitment to this deal

I'm open to being bought out. But negotiations will start high

I said

_Brian wrote: »

I'm open to being bought out. But negotiations will start high

Start planting trees now in anticipation

merryberry

I said wrote: »

Some expert on radio 1 reckons to get rid of all the part time beef farmers would help Ireland's commitment to this deal

I think he referred to loss making beef farmers. Part time beef farmers can quite efficient too.

Sam Kade

djmc wrote: »

You can't deny that the climate is changing that is proven beyond doubt.
We are now getting heavier rain over shorter a time period than I can remember over the last 40 years.
Whether or not people are causing it or not is another debate as climate has always been changing throughout history but of late it seems to be changing a lot faster.
Carbon tax is just going to be another way of taking money from us and do little for the environment but that doesn't mean we should give up and do nothing either.
As far as I know they want to protect food security so how its going to impact agriculture I don't know.
http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/ifa-says-climate-change-agreement-safeguards-food-production/

I never denied that the climate was changing, do you know that weather and climate are not the same? The excess rain will not stop overnight if action is taken it could take years

Suckler

merryberry wrote: »

I think he referred to loss making beef farmers. Part time beef farmers can quite efficient too.

What program was it on?

merryberry

Suckler wrote: »

What program was it on?

Morning Ireland this morning

I said

merryberry wrote: »

I think he referred to loss making beef farmers. Part time beef farmers can quite efficient too.

Aye the sfp ones

merryberry

I said wrote: »

Aye the sfp ones

Not he referred to loss making beef farmers. Loss is ex sfp

Birdnuts

If you look behind all the political grandstanding and general "hot air" concerning what actually happend in Paris, the agreement itself doesn't amount to much. Some vague talk about emmissions peaking at some undetermined date in the future and then some sort of levelling off or "carbon neutrality". Its all pretty much left to individual countries. I doubt the likes of China or India will be curbing their industrial etc. output to any great extent until it suits them. With regards to the current flooding problems, I'd tend to put it down to bad planning and land use issues in affected catchements(drainage of vast areas of bog for industrial peat harvesting is a big factor with regards to flooding on the Shannon) rather than any dramatic changes in climate. If you look back through history their has always been periods of dramatic weather events and sharp changes in climate. Indeed we are actually overdue another ice-age. Adapting to that is when the fun would really start;)

Pacoa

"Ireland’s emissions will come under the spotlight immediately, because the EU is about to add targets for two additional greenhouse gases, methane and ammonia, to its current list. These gases largely come from agriculture."

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/ireland-cant-avoid-climate-obligations-forever-371309.html

barnaman

But most Irish farmers raise cattle at a loss, and only remain in business because the EU taxpayer is subsidising them. With offsets, the Irish taxpayer will be asked to subsidise them on the double.

From that linked article. They love us! Happy to give up farming and get a nice 4 bed house for €28 a week on the Social like alot of the lads knocking around. Get a small conviction or two to make sure I never have to worry about having to get a job. At least that I could rest happy not being subsidised by the taxpayers of the EU.

merryberry

Pacoa wrote: »

"Ireland’s emissions will come under the spotlight immediately, because the EU is about to add targets for two additional greenhouse gases, methane and ammonia, to its current list. These gases largely come from agriculture."

Would b more concerned with Ammonia targets than greenhouse gas targets. Nearly 99% is derived from agriculture with no opportunity to trade or off set

Pacoa

Exactly. Im worried they'll turn the screw on the nitrates directive, i get the derogation at the moment. I wouldn't like to see them doing away with that and have to go back to 170kgs.

_Brian

It's going to take some manipulation of the numbers to hit the 2020/2050 production targets AND have farming bend to substantially tighter emission targets or new targets for some.

How can both possibly happen without us getting a considerable consession ??

djmc

There is going to be interesting times with an estimated 9 billion people on the planet to feed by 2050 and I think at the moment enough food in store to last 3 days an awful lot of people in western culture don't care or understand about food security.
I once knew a lad that used to say a good war and famine would sort an awful lot out.
It's going to be very hard to keep everyone happy going forward with every side pushing their own agenda.
Wind turbines ecars solar GM crops trees can all help but then will there be room for nature and landscape and if we stop breeding cattle and all become veggies and brest feed babies what will happen the cows and will we still have enough food to feed the planet.

Capercaillie

djmc wrote: »

There is going to be interesting times with an estimated 9 billion people on the planet to feed by 2050 and I think at the moment enough food in store to last 3 days an awful lot of people in western culture don't care or understand about food security.
I once knew a lad that used to say a good war and famine would sort an awful lot out.
It's going to be very hard to keep everyone happy going forward with every side pushing their own agenda.
Wind turbines ecars solar GM crops trees can all help but then will there be room for nature and landscape and if we stop breeding cattle and all become veggies and brest feed babies what will happen the cows and will we still have enough food to feed the planet.

Population control was not mentioned in the Climate Change discussions. No food security without it.

ganmo

Capercaillie wrote: »

Population control was not mentioned in the Climate Change discussions. No food security without it.

population control would be practically effective but financially + political poisonous.
humans should put survival over an abstract concept like numbers in computers. thats why i think its nuts to be targeting food production when theres whole industries that in the end will be pointless(marketing + fashion come to mind)

_Brian

ganmo wrote: »

population control would be practically effective but financially + political poisonous.
humans should put survival over an abstract concept like numbers in computers. thats why i think its nuts to be targeting food production when theres whole industries that in the end will be pointless(marketing + fashion come to mind)

It's going to be an easy sell to joe public.

These farmers are bein supported out of your tax euros and are among the highest producers of greenhouse gasses. It's been said before people don't understand food security, they don't beleive that the direct Payments subsidise food prices.

It may come down to what deal can be sold to the public rather than what is practical.

djmc

While population control would help both climate control and food security agriculture would be an easier sell to the public.
If there is a food shortages it will inevitably lead to war or famine as it always has throughout history but I would think probably in the poorer regions of the world first.
I don't know if a cut in production would be a good thing for farmers as it would alter the supply and demand and should alter price's if every farmer in all country's were forced to do the same which I doubt will happen.
A more likely scenario would be some form of carbon tax credits which will only move money around.

laoch na mona

build some biogas plants to use the methane, announce large reforestation plans to offset the carbon dioxide. Problem solved

globally something has to be done, in the grand scheme we are a small country with relatively low emissions (we still need to tackle them) we come no where near the emissions of large industrial nations or the rising industrial nations.

It's also worth remembering that there is a delayed impact with climate change, what we sow in emissions is reaped by future generations. So while we can't immediately stop worsening weather patterns we can try and ensure we don't make it worse for future generations

darragh_haven

laoch na mona wrote: »

build some biogas plants to use the methane, announce large reforestation plans to offset the carbon dioxide. Problem solved

globally something has to be done, in the grand scheme we are a small country with relatively low emissions (we still need to tackle them) we come no where near the emissions of large industrial nations or the rising industrial nations.

It's also worth remembering that there is a delayed impact with climate change, what we sow in emissions is reaped by future generations. So while we can't immediately stop worsening weather patterns we can try and ensure we don't make it worse for future generations

Yes. Biogas plants are the way forward. Big thumbs up.*

*Please note my opinion is purely guided by my selfish need for work as I work in the biogas industry

_Brian

The more I think about it the notion of a levy on activity is likely.
The take would be used to fund afforestation and the likes if these biogas operations.

This could facilitate increased production and this increased production would fund counteracting Measures.

The levy would be on the farmer and so not add to the price of beef/milk as it's well accepted that farmers are price takers and will suffer on regardless.

Is the government white paper due out this week ??

kowtow

Methane is the problem, I don't think anyone will have a problem swinging the argument that intensive grassland => carbon sink => good ... but what about the methane it takes to graze it intensively?

I'm with Darragh on this, I want a 36 cow methane digester, and I want it now.

We can use it to heat a greenhouse full of newly legalised medical marijuana.

And we can keep the cows indoors to catch the methane, zero grazed.

Grass in, Grass Out. Everybody wins.

Dawggone

kowtow wrote: »

We can use it to heat a greenhouse full of newly legalised medical marijuana.

And we can keep the cows indoors to catch the methane, zero grazed.

Grass in, Grass Out. Everybody wins.

Why not feed the weed to the cows?

Did someone say on here that "Lullaby" milk is expensive?
I imagine that cheese from that milk would be worth as much as hash cakes...

And its sustainable.

kowtow

Dawggone wrote: »

Why not feed the weed to the cows?

Did someone say on here that "Lullaby" milk is expensive?
I imagine that cheese from that milk would be worth as much as hash cakes...

And its sustainable.

True, but imagine the traffic jam in the parlour when they get the munchies.

_Brian

http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/a-forest-the-size-of-sligo-and-leitrim-will-be-core-to-irelands-global-warming-response/

Forest the Size of Sligo & Leitrim is required..

If this could be block planted and well laid out it would also be a considerable amenity drawing in huge tourism numbers..

yosemitesam1

kowtow wrote: »

Methane is the problem, I don't think anyone will have a problem swinging the argument that intensive grassland => carbon sink => good ... but what about the methane it takes to graze it intensively?

I'm with Darragh on this, I want a 36 cow methane digester, and I want it now.

We can use it to heat a greenhouse full of newly legalised medical marijuana.

And we can keep the cows indoors to catch the methane, zero grazed.

Grass in, Grass Out. Everybody wins.

Im not sure whether its that simple, there is an awful lot not known about soil and what would the long term effects be.
Like what is a sustainable system, is it a species rich grassland producing a moderate sized crop on very little to no inputs, with a very biologically active soil that supports a high diversity of bacteria, fungi, insects etc.
Or is it a ryegrass monoculture that needs a couple of hundred kilos of fertiliser a year to keep producing and does not associate as much with other soil organisms and is reliant on it being handed all the nutrients it needs.
Or is it something in between these two extremes?
Has the research measuring carbon sequestration been going long because while intensive grass might have higher om levels in the surface it might not be as stable as the om that was layed down slowly?
I don't know the answer to any of this but its worth thinking about and researching before any decisions are made.

Capercaillie

_Brian wrote: »

http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/a-forest-the-size-of-sligo-and-leitrim-will-be-core-to-irelands-global-warming-response/

Forest the Size of Sligo & Leitrim is required..

If this could be block planted and well laid out it would also be a considerable amenity drawing in huge tourism numbers..

What the government wants to plant is vast mono-cultures of near sterile sitka spruce plantations. Can't see tourists been attracted to areas such as these. Since fertile lowland will not be planted. Upland areas (bogs, cutover bogs) are being planted. Peatlands are vast Carbon stores, when they are destroyed (drained/cut) this releases vast amounts of Carbon. This defeats the purpose of planting them with trees in the first place.

eoinmk2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgmssrVInP0

interesting to see some figures the whole thing

pedigree 6

eoinmk2 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgmssrVInP0

interesting to see some figures the whole thing

Send this to an taisce. Faster growing grass takes in more carbon and with measuring now we are able to target the slower growing paddocks and get them growing through reseeding, lime use etc. Maybe i'm being a bit simplistic but with recycling of organic matter back into the ground and grass now being bred to grow nearly all year round pasture farming is a solution not a problem.

The problem that the likes of an taisce have is that they have vegetarians or worse vegans who are trying to push their own agenda's through all under the guise of climate change and protecting the planet.

Capercaillie

pedigree 6 wrote: »

Send this to an taisce. Faster growing grass takes in more carbon and with measuring now we are able to target the slower growing paddocks and get them growing through reseeding, lime use etc. Maybe i'm being a bit simplistic but with recycling of organic matter back into the ground and grass now being bred to grow nearly all year round pasture farming is a solution not a problem.
.

You have cattle grazing the grass, who release huge amounts of methane into atmosphere.

The problem that the likes of an taisce have is that they have vegetarians or worse vegans who are trying to push their own agenda's through all under the guise of climate change and protecting the planet

Pure and utter rubbish.

_Brian

pedigree 6 wrote: »

The problem that the likes of an taisce have is that they have vegetarians or worse vegans who are trying to push their own agenda's through all under the guise of climate change and protecting the planet.

I suppose in general its possible Vegans and Veggies could well use this to push their own agenda, but don't we all have our own agendas to push.. How often to you hear farmers scorn at land being planted "coz its lost to farming forever". I've been guilty of it myself because it was land across the hedge that would have squared off our block of land really well..

pedigree 6

_Brian wrote: »

I suppose in general its possible Vegans and Veggies could well use this to push their own agenda, but don't we all have our own agendas to push.. How often to you hear farmers scorn at land being planted "coz its lost to farming forever". I've been guilty of it myself because it was land across the hedge that would have squared off our block of land really well..

Look i'm farming all my life first with my father since I was able to carry a bucket and now in my own right for the last 5 years. I'm not a scientist but i'd say well managed rotationly grazed grass in this country takes in more carbon dioxide than trees can. When the trees have lost their leaves the grass is still growing taking in carbon dioxide. We are making great strides in this country in grass breeding and management and this is one of the best countries in the world for growing grass. We are hearing reports of 20t/h of grass grown here and how much carbon dioxide is that taken out of the atmosphere.
We have the best environment for livestock farming in the world here and we don't have to rely on the same irrigation or diesel usage that other farmers around the world do. If we don't produce it here they'll only be chopping down rainforests or have big feedlots in the desert importing feed from the other side of the world.

_Brian

pedigree 6 wrote: »

If we don't produce it here they'll only be chopping down rainforests or have big feedlots in the desert importing feed from the other side of the world.

But will government give a shiite what is chopped down elsewhere if they have their numbers straight here.. If they can plant up land and export our food production and food security I've little doubt that's what they will do to a certain degree..
Importing food from other countries is a sure way of shirking your responsibilities regarding how ethically that food is produced and what was chopped down to produce it..
I've said before, Irish consumers won't realise how good our agri products like beef really are until none is being produced here and they are eating some piece of cheap rubbery meat from the amazon basin.

Capercaillie

pedigree 6 wrote: »

If we don't produce it here they'll only be chopping down rainforests or have big feedlots in the desert importing feed from the other side of the world.

That's the often used soundbite from the IFA. Brazilian beef farmer are not going to stop chopping down rainforest because we are producing grass based beef.

pedigree 6

Capercaillie wrote: »

You have cattle grazing the grass, who release huge amounts of methane into atmosphere.

I did a bit of reading on methane. Methane is produced by ruminants, bogs/marshes, landfills, rice paddyfields, mining coal, drilling for oil and gas, rivers, lakes.
There was actually a reduction in methane in the atmosphere in the last two decades in the last century. Some people put this down to the use of artificial fertiliser in paddy fields but it has gone back up again.

How do you stop methane being produced?
Kill every ruminant animal in the world. Drain every bog and marsh and grow trees on them instead. Don't grow rice. Don't have lakes and straighten all the rivers to the quickest route to the sea. Don't have landfills but have incineration instead. Don't mine for coal and no more oil and gas. Stop people eating vegetables because we probably produce it aswell.

I don't mean to be flippant but if the powers that be were around at the time of the dinasours they would probably have them all killed off for producing methane.

eoinmk2

We are never going to be able to stop methane production fully, and anyway, why would you, just because it is a greenhouse gas doesn't mean that it is not important. it plays a role in the whole carbon cycle. I think levels need to be controlled as efficiently as possible to match the natural levels of the cycle

I'd be interested in the figures on how much carbon the grass production in Ireland could sequester, compared to how much is produced by agriculture. if it does offset the emissions be a considerable amount surely there is a case for keeping the land in production as opposed to planting or something similar.