Fodder crisis and the environment discussion

realitykeeper

Ireland does not need more beef or more milk. We have far too many cattle as is. Subvention is a poor substitute for innovation. In recent years, Ethiopian farmers have come to understand that. This documentary is about the farmers there rejecting handouts, and the benefits that have started as a result: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYS7T9UMrsA

TITANIUM.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Ireland does not need more beef or more milk. We have far too many cattle as is. Subvention is a poor substitute for innovation. In recent years, Ethiopian farmers have come to understand that. This documentary is about the farmers there rejecting handouts, and the benefits that have started as a result: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYS7T9UMrsA

Thanks for popping in with that little nugget of information 🙄

Donald Trump

realitykeeper wrote: »

Ireland does not need more beef or more milk. We have far too many cattle as is. Subvention is a poor substitute for innovation. In recent years, Ethiopian farmers have come to understand that. This documentary is about the farmers there rejecting handouts, and the benefits that have started as a result: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYS7T9UMrsA

But do they know it's Christmas time at all?

realitykeeper

Donald Trump wrote: »

But do they know it's Christmas time at all?

Do Irish cows know it`s Christmas? Good luck with your fodder crisis

Donald Trump

realitykeeper wrote: »

Do Irish cows know it`s Christmas? Good luck with your fodder crisis

Yeah of course they do. The ones here are looking forward to it. The turkeys not so much*.














*turkeys voting for Christmas also being an appropriate description for the people trying to stop the country producing beef and dairy

twin_beacon

realitykeeper wrote: »

Ireland does not need more beef or more milk. We have far too many cattle as is.

Ireland exports 85% of its dairy produce, worth almost €3.4bn to the economy, and 90% of its beef produce, worth almost €2.4bn to the economy. Can you give a figure of how many cattle is "too many"? By what figure would you reduce the national herd by, and in what areas would you reduce numbers (Beef, suckler or dairy). How would you make up for the shortfall in revenue caused by a reduced national herd?

realitykeeper wrote: »

Subvention is a poor substitute for innovation.

Ignorance is bliss, apparently. Subsidization is not subvention. If you think Irish and European farmers are not innovative, then compare the yields from cereals, dairy and meat to what they were even 30 years ago.

realitykeeper wrote: »

In recent years, Ethiopian farmers have come to understand that. This documentary is about the farmers there rejecting handouts, and the benefits that have started as a result: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYS7T9UMrsA

Comparing farming practices in the EU to Ethiopia is comparing apples to oranges.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Good luck with your fodder crisis

Thanks, the dryer Autumn than normal means an extended period grass growth, and better ground conditions so cattle can graze for weeks longer than last year, reducing the amount of fodder required this winter.

realitykeeper

twin_beacon wrote: »

Thanks, the dryer Autumn than normal means an extended period grass growth, and better ground conditions so cattle can graze for weeks longer than last year, reducing the amount of fodder required this winter.

Politicians take note: There is no crisis.

twin_beacon

realitykeeper wrote: »

Politicians take note: There is no crisis.

I find it funny that you didn't care to address any of my other points.

realitykeeper

twin_beacon wrote: »

Ireland exports 85% of its dairy produce, worth almost €3.4bn to the economy, and 90% of its beef produce, worth almost €2.4bn to the economy. Can you give a figure of how many cattle is "too many"? By what figure would you reduce the national herd by, and in what areas would you reduce numbers (Beef, suckler or dairy). How would you make up for the shortfall in revenue caused by a reduced national herd?

As an economic strategy, it is better to use what we make and make what we use. By exporting 85% of our dairy produce, we are only using 15% of the dairy we produce. Dairy is quite a low value range of products so exporting dairy is not going to bring in an awful lot of money. You point out yourself, the country only takes in a few billion from exporting a lot of dairy and beef and that is probably the gross figure.

Ireland imports a lot of horticultural produce. We produce only some of what we consume in fruit and veg. Again, it is better to produce what we use. Should this apply to absolutely every manufactured product we use? Of course not, but it should apply to most of the food we consume and not just for economic reasons. Environmentally it would be better and it would be better from a food security point of view.

realitykeeper

twin_beacon wrote: »

Comparing farming practices in the EU to Ethiopia is comparing apples to oranges.

The principle holds true, regardless of whether you apply it to Ethiopia or Europe.

TITANIUM.

realitykeeper wrote: »

As an economic strategy, it is better to use what we make and make what we use. By exporting 85% of our dairy produce, we are only using 15% of the dairy we produce. Dairy is quite a low value range of products so exporting dairy is not going to bring in an awful lot of money. You point out yourself, the country only takes in a few billion from exporting a lot of dairy and beef and that is probably the gross figure.

Ireland imports a lot of horticultural produce. We produce only some of what we consume in fruit and veg. Again, it is better to produce what we use. Should this apply to absolutely every manufactured product we use? Of course not, but it should apply to most of the food we consume and not just for economic reasons. Environmentally it would be better and it would be better from a food security point of view.

Cough cough.

A simple thank you to us farmers will suffice!

Donald Trump

realitykeeper wrote: »

As an economic strategy, it is better to use what we make and make what we use. By exporting 85% of our dairy produce, we are only using 15% of the dairy we produce. Dairy is quite a low value range of products so exporting dairy is not going to bring in an awful lot of money. You point out yourself, the country only takes in a few billion from exporting a lot of dairy and beef and that is probably the gross figure.

Ireland imports a lot of horticultural produce. We produce only some of what we consume in fruit and veg. Again, it is better to produce what we use. Should this apply to absolutely every manufactured product we use? Of course not, but it should apply to most of the food we consume and not just for economic reasons. Environmentally it would be better and it would be better from a food security point of view.

Buy Irish and buy seasonal then.


Imports of fruit and veg is driven by two things:
1) Consumer demand
2) Strength of multinationals like Tesco trying to squeeze extra pennies out of it for themselves




(Yes there is the old argument that the lorries bringing out beef used to bring back fruit and veg, but that doesn't necessarily hold true now as there are many more things coming into the country)




From an environmental perspective, is it better to produce 100t of milk from grass in Ireland or have the Europeans/other produce it from factory cows?

Bass Reeves

realitykeeper wrote: »

As an economic strategy, it is better to use what we make and make what we use. By exporting 85% of our dairy produce, we are only using 15% of the dairy we produce. Dairy is quite a low value range of products so exporting dairy is not going to bring in an awful lot of money. You point out yourself, the country only takes in a few billion from exporting a lot of dairy and beef and that is probably the gross figure.

Ireland imports a lot of horticultural produce. We produce only some of what we consume in fruit and veg. Again, it is better to produce what we use. Should this apply to absolutely every manufactured product we use? Of course not, but it should apply to most of the food we consume and not just for economic reasons. Environmentally it would be better and it would be better from a food security point of view.

I am not sure if there is any point in rehashing this debate again. We had it a few times on the political forum. You seems to have exited there with you assumption that cheap chineese labour would end the world as we know it. And that there should be no minimum wage.

Economy's are not all about the value of exports. While agri exports may seem small with regard to the economic value of technology exports agri gives much more back into the economy. Fot instance we have a large agri machinery export section.

Is Irish Whiskey and Bailey's Irish cream an agri export. The 6 billion spoken about earlier is just direct agri export. There are loads of added value products that exist because of Agriculture. It was the assumption that we could keep building houses for each other in the noughties that caused the economic downturn that we have now exited from. We are one of the biggest exports of baby milk formula in the world. Companies like Kerry and Glanbia are now massive food companies with there base in Ireland but also existing because of there access to very compeditively priced quality milk.

in other words you have not a clue of what you are talking about.

After this I am stopping feeding the troll.

Water John

Farm produce contribute a lot more to the economy than manufactured goods, per €1m exported. The ratio of imported raw materials is something you need to take into account.
We are one of the most efficient producers of dairy products in the world, esp in relation to climate effects.

The full interaction of soils, biomass wildlife and farming needs a lot more investigation. We are only beginning to look at all these aspects, science wise.

bogman_bass

realitykeeper wrote: »

As an economic strategy, it is better to use what we make and make what we use.

.

This line shows that you really don’t know a whole lot about economics

20silkcut

realitykeeper wrote: »

As an economic strategy, it is better to use what we make and make what we use. By exporting 85% of our dairy produce, we are only using 15% of the dairy we produce. Dairy is quite a low value range of products so exporting dairy is not going to bring in an awful lot of money. You point out yourself, the country only takes in a few billion from exporting a lot of dairy and beef and that is probably the gross figure.

Ireland imports a lot of horticultural produce. We produce only some of what we consume in fruit and veg. Again, it is better to produce what we use. Should this apply to absolutely every manufactured product we use? Of course not, but it should apply to most of the food we consume and not just for economic reasons. Environmentally it would be better and it would be better from a food security point of view.

Specialization is a feature of an open market economy. Food security has not been an issue in this country since the emergency. It would be foolish to base our entire agricultural industry on a once in 70 year food security event. Close alliances and trading arrangements with neighbors creates far more food security than producing everything we eat ourselves. That economic model is Stone Age stuff.

patsy_mccabe

One thing for sure though, its economic madness to keep exporting produce at below cost of production. Beef being a prime (no pun intended) example.

Mooooo

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

One thing for sure though, its economic madness to keep exporting produce at below cost of production. Beef being a prime (no pun intended) price.

The processors arent exporting at below cost, the farmers are selling to them at below cost

patsy_mccabe

Mooooo wrote: »

The processors arent exporting at below cost, the farmers are selling to them at below cost

Same thing really. Just the farmer bears the brunt of the loss.

realitykeeper

TITANIUM. wrote: »

Cough cough.

A simple thank you to us farmers will suffice!

These surveys are usually just the doodles of mindless bureaucrats with nothing better to do.

realitykeeper

Donald Trump wrote: »

Buy Irish and buy seasonal then.


Imports of fruit and veg is driven by two things:
1) Consumer demand
2) Strength of multinationals like Tesco trying to squeeze extra pennies out of it for themselves


From an environmental perspective, is it better to produce 100t of milk from grass in Ireland or have the Europeans/other produce it from factory cows?

The challenges of consumer demand and the strength of multinationals apply to the massive producers of fruit/veg in the Netherlands just as they apply to the start up Irish farmer. Granted we do not have the long tradition and established supports here but I think the same tradition could begin here if farmers tried to become more self sufficient in horticultural produce then increase production gradually from there.

On the other point, I suspect the grass fed cows are environmentally a worse option because of the greenhouse gas emissions. The more intensive operations probably use the methane as fuel before using it for manure. Even African farmers are turning cow dung into cooking gas to reduce dependence on charcoal.

realitykeeper

bogman_bass wrote: »

This line shows that you really don’t know a whole lot about economics

Not so because the opposite of using what we make and making what we use is not using what we make and using what we don`t make. The African union has identified the latter scenario as one of the reasons for the impoverishment of that continent.

realitykeeper

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

One thing for sure though, its economic madness to keep exporting produce at below cost of production. Beef being a prime (no pun intended) example.

I agree. Also, I`ll bet the Dutch don`t export horticultural produce below cost.

Donald Trump

realitykeeper wrote: »

The challenges of consumer demand and the strength of multinationals apply to the massive producers of fruit/veg in the Netherlands just as they apply to the start up Irish farmer. Granted we do not have the long tradition and established supports here but I think the same tradition could begin here if farmers tried to become more self sufficient in horticultural produce then increase production gradually from there.

I highlighted the important words in your post.



You realise that there can be Irish farmers ploughing acres of good cabbage into the ground just because the supermarket decides to leverage on it's UK or European distribution centres? Then they can come to the Irish farmer and say "we want X tonnes of carrots etc for free for our promotion next week or else you lose your contract"

realitykeeper wrote: »

On the other point, I suspect the grass fed cows are environmentally a worse option because of the greenhouse gas emissions.

You'd be wrong. Grassfed = low density. Visit the average Irish dairy farm and then go visit a foreign factory dairy farm to see which you think is more sustainable environmentally

realitykeeper wrote: »

The more intensive operations probably use the methane as fuel before using it for manure. Even African farmers are turning cow dung into cooking gas to reduce dependence on charcoal.

I'll sell you a few loads of dung if you want. Happy out. You can also sign a nitrates export form for me as well. Everyone's a winner baby.

Buford T. Justice XIX

realitykeeper wrote: »

The challenges of consumer demand and the strength of multinationals apply to the massive producers of fruit/veg in the Netherlands just as they apply to the start up Irish farmer. Granted we do not have the long tradition and established supports here but I think the same tradition could begin here if farmers tried to become more self sufficient in horticultural produce then increase production gradually from there.

Seriously?
There is no shortage of horticultural produce in Ireland. All that is sold in Ireland is contracted out to producers at the beginning of any year and produced to a very tight specification level. If a farmer doesn't produce the contracted volume, their contract is reduced or terminated. Any product outside specification has to be disposed of despite being perfectly edible and is fed to livestock all through the year.

Any crop that can be grown 'profitably' here is grown here. Unless you can find a profitable way of production of satsumas, peanuts, bananas, pomegranates, hard wheats etc, etc, etc, they aren't going to be grown here.

On the other point, I suspect the grass fed cows are environmentally a worse option because of the greenhouse gas emissions. The more intensive operations probably use the methane as fuel before using it for manure. Even African farmers are turning cow dung into cooking gas to reduce dependence on charcoal.

Yet again, I'll post this explanation of the fact that animal agriculture isn't the driving force behind global warming but humans energy intensive lifestyles. Take a few minutes and read the whole lot, I've plenty more if you want them too. Take a close look at the third graph in the following tweet, it explains the drivers graphically.

https://twitter.com/SBakerMD/status/1049696517177503745

realitykeeper

Donald Trump wrote: »

I'll sell you a few loads of dung if you want. Happy out. You can also sign a nitrates export form for me as well. Everyone's a winner baby.

There you see? You would do anything but be innovative.

Markcheese

realitykeeper wrote: »

There you see? You would do anything but be innovative.

I assume you're a farmer or grower.. As you seem to be very aware of what the agri sector "should" do.
(im not by the way)

Odelay

Markcheese wrote: »

I assume you're a farmer or grower.. As you seem to be very aware of what the agri sector "should" do.
(im not by the way)

This lad is an expert in everything. Knows it all.

Donald Trump

Markcheese wrote: »

I assume you're a farmer or grower.. As you seem to be very aware of what the agri sector "should" do.
(im not by the way)

Poster doesn't have a clue. Not knocking him/her for that. Very few would


Talks about veg farmers being "self sufficient" as if to imply they are depending on subsidies. There were never any production linked supports for veg farmers. Infrastructure grants maybe, but not subsidies for produce like beef or lamb.


And none would have been in Reps or similar.

Bass Reeves

Odelay wrote: »

This lad is an expert in everything. Knows F@@K all.

Corrected that

Timmaay

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Seriously?
There is no shortage of horticultural produce in Ireland. All that is sold in Ireland is contracted out to producers at the beginning of any year and produced to a very tight specification level. If a farmer doesn't produce the contracted volume, their contract is reduced or terminated. Any product outside specification has to be disposed of despite being perfectly edible and is fed to livestock all through the year.

Any crop that can be grown 'profitably' here is grown here. Unless you can find a profitable way of production of satsumas, peanuts, bananas, pomegranates, hard wheats etc, etc, etc, they aren't going to be grown here.


Yet again, I'll post this explanation of the fact that animal agriculture isn't the driving force behind global warming but humans energy intensive lifestyles. Take a few minutes and read the whole lot, I've plenty more if you want them too. Take a close look at the third graph in the following tweet, it explains the drivers graphically.

https://twitter.com/SBakerMD/status/1049696517177503745

https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968

Only came across this early.

Danzy

Odelay wrote: »

This lad is an expert in everything. Knows it all.

They have broken through reality keepers hedge

Say my name

Timmaay wrote: »

https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968

Only came across this early.

In keeping with the positivity of agriculture saving the planet.

Here's a link to an interview with Jim Loar President and CEO of Cool planet at an ffa conference in the U.S.
He mentions their product and how the 3 year trial on beef and dairy cows is progressing.
Also interviews with Microsoft, about their involvement in the industry.
https://omny.fm/shows/farming-the-countryside-with-andrew-mccrea/episode-9-national-ffa-convention

If anyone mentions agriculture in Ireland and about carbon emissions and throws some fancy percentage figure at you. Ask them what is the absorption figure.
They haven't got the foggiest!

realitykeeper

Markcheese wrote: »

I assume you're a farmer or grower.. As you seem to be very aware of what the agri sector "should" do.
(im not by the way)

Be you a farmer or an astronaut, if you believe it is better to work hard than to be lazy, I agree. If you believe it is better to be innovative than to stagnate in a rut, I agree with that too.

blackbox

realitykeeper wrote: »

Even African farmers are turning cow dung into cooking gas to reduce dependence on charcoal.

By the time it is dry enough to burn, the methane will be long gone out of it. In any case they would be better off using this organic matter to condition the soil rather than burning it.

twin_beacon

realitykeeper wrote: »

On the other point, I suspect the grass fed cows are environmentally a worse option because of the greenhouse gas emissions. The more intensive operations probably use the methane as fuel before using it for manure. Even African farmers are turning cow dung into cooking gas to reduce dependence on charcoal.

Not at all. 100 grass fed cattle in Ireland, are going to produce as much methane as 100 corn fed cattle in the United States on a factory dairy farm. It doesn't really matter if that methane is collected and burned as bio gas, or escapes into the atmosphere via slurry agitation, either way, green house gases (either methane, or CO2 if burned as bio gas) make its way into the atmosphere.

In the factory dairy farms in the United States, cattle are feed mainly Corn Silage (maize). Maize is a very different crop than grass silage. It requires the land to be ploughed and planted every year, and produces one harvest. It also requires the crop to be sprayed with a pesticide. Grass land can produce up to 3 cuts of silage every year, and doesn't require reseeding. Grass doesn't require spraying.

realitykeeper

blackbox wrote: »

By the time it is dry enough to burn, the methane will be long gone out of it. In any case they would be better off using this organic matter to condition the soil rather than burning it.

They don`t dry it out or burn it. It is collected daily and I think they add some water to help the bacteria produce the methane. Afterwards it is used for the soil. I would have thought that was obvious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIdnOkyDgOA

ganmo

twin_beacon wrote: »

Not at all. 100 grass fed cattle in Ireland, are going to produce as much methane as 100 corn fed cattle in the United States on a factory dairy farm. It doesn't really matter if that methane is collected and burned as bio gas, or escapes into the atmosphere via slurry agitation, either way, green house gases (either methane, or CO2 if burned as bio gas) make its way into the atmosphere.

In the factory dairy farms in the United States, cattle are feed mainly Corn Silage (maize). Maize is a very different crop than grass silage. It requires the land to be ploughed and planted every year, and produces one harvest. It also requires the crop to be sprayed with a pesticide. Grass land can produce up to 3 cuts of silage every year, and doesn't require reseeding. Grass doesn't require spraying.

you're not right there, a grass diet increases CH4 production but overall its less

http://newzealmeats.com/blog/grain-fed-vs-grass-fed-beef-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

Markcheese

realitykeeper wrote: »

Be you a farmer or an astronaut, if you believe it is better to work hard than to be lazy, I agree. If you believe it is better to be innovative than to stagnate in a rut, I agree with that too.

The reason I asked was because I've met a lot of people who were full of ideas about the sacrifices and changes others should make...
And yes innovation in the name of progress can be great, but innovation for its own sake is a fools game..
Innovation in farming can be very environmentally risky too, ( and yes I know the Irish landscape is constantly being changed from the era of the first farmers to now.. And this changes biodiversity as well as emissions and pollutants...)
Its innovation that has led to monocultures chemical dependencies..

K.G.

listened to a vegan of some discription going on meat and it effect on greenhouse gases and at the same time read an article by colm macarhty about the effective d
subsidisation of air travel due to it 0 zero vat status.the irony of it

realitykeeper

Markcheese wrote: »

The reason I asked was because I've met a lot of people who were full of ideas about the sacrifices and changes others should make...
And yes innovation in the name of progress can be great, but innovation for its own sake is a fools game..
Innovation in farming can be very environmentally risky too, ( and yes I know the Irish landscape is constantly being changed from the era of the first farmers to now.. And this changes biodiversity as well as emissions and pollutants...)
Its innovation that has led to monocultures chemical dependencies..

... all the more reason to grow a wider variety of crops. Also, importing foods from hundreds or indeed thousands of miles away is not good for the environment and it does nothing to curtail monoculture across the planet.

ganmo

realitykeeper wrote: »

... all the more reason to grow a wider variety of crops. Also, importing foods from hundreds or indeed thousands of miles away is not good for the environment and it does nothing to curtail monoculture across the planet.

i agree we should have a diverse culture, i don't really like the way american culture is becoming so pervasive :pac:

twin_beacon

realitykeeper wrote: »

... all the more reason to grow a wider variety of crops. Also, importing foods from hundreds or indeed thousands of miles away is not good for the environment and it does nothing to curtail monoculture across the planet.

Grow the crops that grows the best in the soil you have.

Gawddawggonnit

twin_beacon wrote: »

In the factory dairy farms in the United States, cattle are feed mainly Corn Silage (maize). Maize is a very different crop than grass silage. It requires the land to be ploughed and planted every year, and produces one harvest. It also requires the crop to be sprayed with a pesticide. Grass land can produce up to 3 cuts of silage every year, and doesn't require reseeding. Grass doesn't require spraying.

Maize doesn’t necessarily need the ground ploughed to produce a crop. It doesn’t necessarily need a pesticide either. I’ve grown a share of maize and never used a pesticide. I’ve also grown maize without any herbicides or chemicals whatsoever...

Maize is a C4 plant and is tops for sequestering carbon, waaaay better than monoculture grasses.

Grass does require herbicides.
Isn’t there an issue with herbicides in drinking water even in the west of Ireland?


Just saying.

Water John

Have never heard of herbicides in drinking/potable water in Ireland, not even a whisper of it.
Our problem with maize is we are at the northern edge of its area. We need sheltered low lying land to grow it. The crop thus can be variable, year to year.

Gawddawggonnit

Water John wrote: »

Have never heard of herbicides in drinking/potable water in Ireland, not even a whisper of it.
Our problem with maize is we are at the northern edge of its area. We need sheltered low lying land to grow it. The crop thus can be variable, year to year.

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/increase-in-the-number-of-pesticides-present-in-public-water-supplies/

charolais0153

Water John wrote: »

Have never heard of herbicides in drinking/potable water in Ireland, not even a whisper of it.
Our problem with maize is we are at the northern edge of its area. We need sheltered low lying land to grow it. The crop thus can be variable, year to year.

Mcpa going to be banned because of it. One chemical that has been abused anyways

Water John

I think you can be there the level of observable levels at very low dosage levels.
I suspect we would still be by far the lowest in Europe.

Wholecrop triticale would also be a good crop to grow on higher land. Very little care needed.

Charolais, correct, more hedge trimming, less spraying. Leave herbicides to crops that need them.

alps

Water John wrote: »

Have never heard of herbicides in drinking/potable water in Ireland, not even a whisper of it.
Our problem with maize is we are at the northern edge of its area. We need sheltered low lying land to grow it. The crop thus can be variable, year to year.

Savage water on the road today, and rivers running out the gaps from fields, but I was flabbergasted with the colour of the water flowing from tillage fields.

Couple of gob****es too around here spreading slurry this week as well....

They might get away with it, but Irish farming doesn't

Say my name

alps wrote: »

Savage water on the road today, and rivers running out the gaps from fields, but I was flabbergasted with the colour of the water flowing from tillage fields.

You definitely should get a read of 'Dirt. The erosion of civilizations.' by David R. Montgomery.
That's basically the whole book in fourteen words.

wrangler

Water John wrote: »

I think you can be there the level of observable levels at very low dosage levels.
I suspect we would still be by far the lowest in Europe.

Wholecrop triticale would also be a good crop to grow on higher land. Very little care needed.

Charolais, correct, more hedge trimming, less spraying. Leave herbicides to crops that need them.

Our teagasc advisor has gone to an environment project and was telling us that one of the ingredients of Dock spray is showing up in rivers and lakes now too