Fields of lush green grass and nothing else.

Car99

I'd like to get farmers thoughts on somethings I've notice over the last few years . I'm not criticising or judging how things are done id just like to know if farmers have noticed the same and are in any way concerned for the future.

I've lived in the country all my life , 45 years, in the Golden Vale .
Growing up I spent alot of time in a truck collecting bulk milk all over the area and so got to see alot of the farmland within a 20 mile radius of my home .
In the last few years its dawned on me that the landscape looks nothing like it did 30 years ago. Now most fields are dark green with not a sign of a hogweed or thistle , alot bigger and tidier drainage trenches (dykes we use to call em ) with hedgegrows cut down to a fraction of their previous size .
Rarely do I hear a pheasant calling or a rabbit sprint across the road in front of me at night . Hedgehogs and frogs were very common on the roads also years ago not now so I presume their number have declined.
Butterfly and bees also alot less common now.
Back in the day late August there were always a good few local fields with mushrooms now I rarely hear of any field with mushrooms.
A report today's says 40% reduction in insects has been observed and it will lead to big eco system issues in the near future

I know financial pressure and progress is pushing farmers to extract every last cent of profit from their land but at what cost to the eco systems on their land.

What incentives could be given to irradicate the use of pesticides and reduce the pressure on farmers to not have to farm so intensively?

yosemitesam1

Pesticides aren't causing any issues in Ireland. It's the green desert of perennial ryegrass supports very little insects compared to what came before.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Car99 wrote: »

I'd like to get farmers thoughts on somethings I've notice over the last few years . I'm not criticising or judging how things are done id just like to know if farmers have noticed the same and are in any way concerned for the future.

I've lived in the country all my life , 45 years, in the Golden Vale .
Growing up I spent alot of time in a truck collecting bulk milk all over the area and so got to see alot of the farmland within a 20 mile radius of my home .
In the last few years its dawned on me that the landscape looks nothing like it did 30 years ago. Now most fields are dark green with not a sign of a hogweed or thistle , alot bigger and tidier drainage trenches (dykes we use to call em ) with hedgegrows cut down to a fraction of their previous size .
Rarely do I hear a pheasant calling or a rabbit sprint across the road in front of me at night . Hedgehogs and frogs were very common on the roads also years ago not now so I presume their number have declined.
Butterfly and bees also alot less common now.
Back in the day late August there were always a good few local fields with mushrooms now I rarely hear of any field with mushrooms.
A report today's says 40% reduction in insects has been observed and it will lead to big eco system issues in the near future

I know financial pressure and progress is pushing farmers to extract every last cent of profit from their land but at what cost to the eco systems on their land.

What incentives could be given to irradicate the use of pesticides and reduce the pressure on farmers to not have to farm so intensively?

You won't like the answer....


Pay more for food.

_Brian

Car99 wrote: »

I'd like to get farmers thoughts on somethings I've notice over the last few years . I'm not criticising or judging how things are done id just like to know if farmers have noticed the same and are in any way concerned for the future.

I've lived in the country all my life , 45 years, in the Golden Vale .
Growing up I spent alot of time in a truck collecting bulk milk all over the area and so got to see alot of the farmland within a 20 mile radius of my home .
In the last few years its dawned on me that the landscape looks nothing like it did 30 years ago. Now most fields are dark green with not a sign of a hogweed or thistle , alot bigger and tidier drainage trenches (dykes we use to call em ) with hedgegrows cut down to a fraction of their previous size .
Rarely do I hear a pheasant calling or a rabbit sprint across the road in front of me at night . Hedgehogs and frogs were very common on the roads also years ago not now so I presume their number have declined.
Butterfly and bees also alot less common now.
Back in the day late August there were always a good few local fields with mushrooms now I rarely hear of any field with mushrooms.
A report today's says 40% reduction in insects has been observed and it will lead to big eco system issues in the near future

I know financial pressure and progress is pushing farmers to extract every last cent of profit from their land but at what cost to the eco systems on their land.

What incentives could be given to irradicate the use of pesticides and reduce the pressure on farmers to not have to farm so intensively?

I don’t mean this in a horrible way but a 20 mile radius of your home isn’t a representation of the whole country.

Ireland composes of a massively varied landscape. The landscape you describe is fertile and enjoys a climate perfect for moderately intensive agricultural production and as such is being put to its best possible use.

If you look at other counties where climate is less favourable and land of a much more marginal type extensive farming is the major practice , plenty of hedgerows, lowland wet areas are still strong with nature and wild animals.

The holistic plan for Ireland should recognise each area for its strengths and strive to maximise each to its full potential. Marginal farmland should get supports to further encourage and nurture wildlife farming in a low intensity structure in parallel. Where fertile suitable area should be supported to maximise the output without detriment to the environment.

A one size fits all approach is where we fall down, that results in a mosh mash and no area is maximised to its potential.

gozunda

Car99 wrote: »

I'd like to get farmers thoughts on somethings I've notice over the last few years . I'm not criticising or judging how things are done id just like to know if farmers have noticed the same and are in any way concerned for the future.
I've lived in the country all my life , 45 years, in the Golden Vale . Growing up I spent alot of time in a truck collecting bulk milk all over the area and so got to see alot of the farmland within a 20 mile radius of my home . In the last few years its dawned on me that the landscape looks nothing like it did 30 years ago. Now most fields are dark green with not a sign of a hogweed or thistle , alot bigger and tidier drainage trenches (dykes we use to call em ) with hedgegrows cut down to a fraction of their previous size .

Rarely do I hear a pheasant calling or a rabbit sprint across the road in front of me at night .Hedgehogs and frogs were very common on the roads also years ago not now so I presume their number have declined.

Butterfly and bees also alot less common now.

Back in the day late August there were always a good few local fields with mushrooms now I rarely hear of any field with mushrooms.


A report today's says 40% reduction in insects has been observed and it will lead to big eco system issues in the near future
I know financial pressure and progress is pushing farmers to extract every last cent of profit from their land but at what cost to the eco systems on their land.
What incentives could be given to irradicate the use of pesticides and reduce the pressure on farmers to not have to farm so intensively?

The first thing I would say with regard to wildlife on roads is that any I've came across in the last decade or so generally tend to smashed to smithereens. Roads are a lot busier and vehicle speed means that most wildlife crossing roads dont have a chance. Around here In the last month alone Ive seen several dead foxes, 2 dead hares and a mixed lot of birds both big and small. I dunno if some wildlife are learning to avoid roads or that the increase in wildlife dead on the roads is increasing.

The second is that this year was amazing for mushrooms everywhere - there was even a thread on here about them been found in places they hadn't been seen in years. Some credited the dry summer and then late rainfall causing the spurt in mushroom growth everywhere. Is this due to changes in weather patterns perhaps? The mushrooms I found were even growing in reseeded fields

Third I saw that report and the thing is the greatest use of 'pesticides' is found in horticulture and arable areas. The golden vale is largely grass which does not see a whole load of pesticide use.

I saw a painting recently which was done about 200 years ago and shows a local stretch of road. I didn't recognise it at all because all the banks were bare with not a twig or tree in sight. I was told this was because people then collected firewood from the roadside hedges and ditches which meant that banks were not covered in the shrubs and bushes we see everywhere today.

I guess things and places do change. Often the cause of that change is not so easy to figure out imo.

_Brian

gozunda wrote: »

The first thing I would say with regard to wildlife on roads is that any I've came across in the last decade or so generally tend to smashed to smithereens. Roads are a lot busier and vehicle speed means that most wildlife crossing roads dont have a chance. Around here In the last month alone Ive seen several dead foxes, 2 dead hares and a mixed lot of birds both big and small. I dunno if some wildlife are learning to avoid roads or that the increase in wildlife dead on the roads is increasing.

The second is that this year was amazing for mushrooms everywhere - there was even a thread on here about them been found in places they hadn't been seen in years. Some credited the dry summer and then late rainfall causing the spurt in mushroom growth everywhere. Is this due to changes in weather patterns perhaps? The mushrooms I found were even growing in reseeded fields

Third I saw that report and the thing is the greatest use of 'pesticides' is found in horticulture and arable areas. The golden vale is largely grass which does not see a whole load of pesticide use.

I saw a painting recently which was done about 200 years ago and shows a local stretch of road. I didn't recognise it at all because all the banks were bare with not a twig or tree in sight. I was told this was because people then collected firewood from the roadside hedges and ditches which meant that banks were not covered in the shrubs and bushes we see everywhere today.

I guess things and places do change. Often the cause of that change is not so easy to figure out imo.

My mother is mid 70’s and she says she can’t beleice how grown over the countryside has got since people stopped cutting firewood. She said her grandfather and later years father would be out near every day with a bowsaw cutting something amd bringing it in.

TooOldBoots

The reality is most Wildlife is in serious decline. Nothing can be done about it really, its a greed and consumer society now.

_Brian

TooOldBoots wrote: »

The reality is most Wildlife is in serious decline. Nothing can be done about it really, its a greed and consumer society now.

I think it’s Ben shown the world over that provide the correct environment protected from pollution and hunting, wildlife and nature will flourish and thrive. This seems the case from African planes to coral reefs.

What we need is a genuine desire for governments to engage farmers appropriately and the understanding from consumers that it increased food costs.

TooOldBoots

_Brian wrote: »

I think it’s Ben shown the world over that provide the correct environment protected from pollution and hunting, wildlife and nature will flourish and thrive. This seems the case from African planes to coral reefs.

What we need is a genuine desire for governments to engage farmers appropriately and the understanding from consumers that it increased food costs.

What planet are you on?
Half of the Wildlife around the world has been lost in the last 40 years. Another 50% due to be wiped out in the next 25 years.

Global warming, acid rain, and holes in the ozone layer, habitatdestruction, mono-culture, draining of wetlands etc etc
Even our own minister for Agriculture is promoting this type of farming, he was on the TV lately saying how we can increase production by drainage and reseeding grasslands.

_Brian

TooOldBoots wrote: »

What planet are you on?
Half of the Wildlife around the world has been lost in the last 40 years. Another 50% due to be wiped out in the next 25 years.

Global warming, acid rain, and holes in the ozone layer, habitatdestruction, mono-culture, draining of wetlands etc etc
Even our own minister for Agriculture is promoting this type of farming, he was on the TV lately saying how we can increase production by drainage and reseeding grasslands.

Plenty examples of success.
Like I said, it needs an engagement from government, we clearly don’t have that.


Ten Irish examples of success
http://www.biodiversityireland.ie/biodiversity-irelands-top-10/10-conservation-success-stories/

Harry Palmr

Ironically country road verges used to be a bit of a haven for wildlife as they sought refuge from mechanised machinery esp during the harvest periods. But many of those safe spaces have been ripped out and replaced by fencing as every last square meter is pressed into production.

TooOldBoots

No its down to society not the Governments. Just look around the Irish countryside, big massive homes, 2/3 cars outside them. New roads, factories, shopping malls, amusement parks, garbage dumps etc --all down to the consumer society.
As I said before theirs nothing that can be done about it, eventually we will tip nature over the edge

_Brian

TooOldBoots wrote: »

No its down to society not the Governments. Just look around the Irish countryside, big massive homes, 2/3 cars outside them. New roads, factories, shopping malls, amusement parks, garbage dumps etc --all down to the consumer society.
As I said before theirs nothing that can be done about it, eventually we will tip nature over the edge

Respectfully disagree.
If the proper schemes were introduced and we had decent wild areas with no hunting or intensive farming nature in all aspects would thrive.

Few wild glens near us are teeming with wildlife and that’s without a hunting ban enforced.

TooOldBoots

We are in one of the most modern countries in the world yet it has become one of the most resource consuming.
Schemes? The Government can't control the one off houses and ribbon development. They can't as they need it.
No meaningful wild areas will be introduced here as, land is too valuable to all the Bull McCabes out there.

gozunda

TooOldBoots wrote: »

What planet are you on?Half of the Wildlife around the world has been lost in the last 40 years. Another 50% due to be wiped out in the next 25 years.
Global warming, acid rain, and holes in the ozone layer, habitatdestruction, mono-culture, draining of wetlands etc etc. Even our own minister for Agriculture is promoting this type of farming, he was on the TV lately saying how we can increase production by drainage and reseeding grasslands.

I'm on the planet where there is way too many humans - all blaming each other. Which one are you on?

yosemitesam1

_Brian wrote: »

Respectfully disagree.
If the proper schemes were introduced and we had decent wild areas with no hunting or intensive farming nature in all aspects would thrive.

Few wild glens near us are teeming with wildlife and that’s without a hunting ban enforced.

If everyone carried out good hedgerow management and there was more diversity within swards, that would go a huge way towards helping wildlife, before more specialized schemes to help the likes of the corncrake.

More than one person on here has been on about eradicating gorse or blackthorn etc from their farm. With that attitude what chance has wildlife got?

_Brian

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

If everyone carried out good hedgerow management and there was more diversity within swards, that would go a huge way towards helping wildlife, before more specialized schemes to help the likes of the corncrake.

More than one person on here has been on about eradicating gorse or blackthorn etc from their farm. With that attitude what chance has wildlife got?

That’s a policy being driven by the government and dept of ag. Farmers will be penalised if they don’t.

This is the sort of behaviour from those with influences we need replaced with practice that encourages

nagel

I live in an area , with marginal land, I don't remember any of the land around me being reseeded in 40 years
the, hedgerows, mainly whitethorn growing up to 20 ft and over, laden down with ivy.
but the garden bird population has dwindled , likewise the Pheasant and Magpies,
so intensive farming is probably not the main reason for this issue

But we have a thriving population of buzzards, and the pine martin, and mink is very common so i think that there are more birds and animals preying on the garden birds.

the only major development in the area, if you can call it that, was the planting of about 30ha of spruce forestry,
before the planting the area was a feeding location for the curlew, since planting no curlew has been heard in the area, so I think that there is a need also to look at the forestry policy and make sure that we plant nature friendly trees not spruce

I says

My lipp parcel in the glas scheme is doing a lot of good that I see. I’ve seen snipe, hares and a lot of different insects it’s only 10hacs but it’s made a great difference for a parcel that size

Still waters

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

You won't like the answer....


Pay more for food.

What a silly answer, do you honestly think that pricing is all down to consumers, do you think paying more for food will reverse the damage people have done re farming, development, but the go to answer from farming is pay more for your food and all will be right with the world, farmers have to keep up with demand but to be banging the same drum that blames consumers for bad prices for farmers is total nonsense, it used be that farmers were the guardian's of the countryside, everything in harmony and all that, but farmers have been instrumental in making policy that revs up production wiping out wildlife habitats to keep goodman and his likes at the top, they're the people to blame for bad prices farmers get, not the ordinary Joe soap

Gawddawggonnit

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

You won't like the answer....


Pay more for food.

In fairness Chief, the IFA wouldn’t even come out with such a glib utterance.

Truth is, if food was 50 times more expensive the situation would be waaaay worse.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Still waters wrote: »

What a silly answer, do you honestly think that pricing is all down to consumers, do you think paying more for food will reverse the damage people have done re farming, development, but the go to answer from farming is pay more for your food and all will be right with the world, farmers have to keep up with demand but to be banging the same drum that blames consumers for bad prices for farmers is total nonsense, it used be that farmers were the guardian's of the countryside, everything in harmony and all that, but farmers have been instrumental in making policy that revs up production wiping out wildlife habitats to keep goodman and his likes at the top, they're the people to blame for bad prices farmers get, not the ordinary Joe soap

It's been done on this forum ad nauseum but I'll go down through my, apparently flippant, answer again.
Firstly, farmers are price takers, we get what's left over when every other sector outside the farm gate has taken their often substantial cut. The farmers % of the retail price has fallen every year since well before I was born and will continue for some time to come. It's a well established fact so you can look it up if you desire to. The old adage

"The farmer is the only man in our economy who buys everything at retail, sells everything at wholesale, and pays the freight both ways"-John F. Kennedy

is as true now as then.



Now, we're told the public wants to have smaller farms and the countryside 'looked after'. Which is fine. Smaller farms with a smaller land area have to be more efficient with prices falling and costs rising. Instead of mixed farms, as was traditional, we are forced by smaller margins to produce more to offset fixed costs over a larger output. To do this efficiently farmers are dropping marginal products as the time cost and capital cost of diverse farm enterprises makes the whole business unviable. . In turn, that means that what would traditionally been marginal land now has to produce to help offset declining margins.

The price of milk, beef, lamb, wheat, barley etc etc etc is at the same prices they were when I started farming some decades ago. The input costs have risen and compliance costs are increasingly taking a larger portion of allocatable funds to remain in business but have no return to the person making that investment.


Ah, but says you, the subsidies...
Yeah, 'subsidies'. Well, after 3 rounds of cuts to that money (c.15%)and 15 years of inflation at the EU target inflation of 2% brings the value of that 'subsidy' down to under 50% in real terms. Now that 'subsidy' is always a handy stick to beat farmer with.

The purpose of that subsidy was to compensate farmers for producing good at lower than cost price, again those figures are easily available so work away at that if you wish. One of the reasons that farmers needed compensation was the allowing of cheaper food into the EU from countries with a negligible compliance record with the agreed standards for import into the EU. Just have a look at Brazilian beef and compare the disease presence and some, just some, of the EU prohibited substances that are freely used to produce the 'same' base product.
The main beneficiary of this policy wasn't the farmer, it was and is the consumer whose food bill now takes, on average, less than 10% of their weekly shop. Again figures are easily googled if you want.
On the other side of the subsidy equation to the farmer is the consumer. The consumer benefited with extra jobs producing goods for export to those countries we allowed the cheaper food into so their standard of living increased. Also, their disposable incomes have increased due to the aforementioned drop in food prices so double benefit for the consumer. The knock on service industry jobs, the housing demand, the whole consumer culture is fed off the cheap food prices favoured by those in power atm.


Now, it's fairly obvious Joe and Mary Bloggs want ever cheaper food so they can purchase their essentials like Sky, SUVs, highspeed broadband, two weeks in Tuscany, the weekend trip to New York for the Christmas, a bigger house than Jack and Joan, a bigger ring than John and Julie, ever more conspicuous consumption. Interestingly, there is almost no mention of the subsidies keeping their disposable incomes so high. Maternity benefits, paternity benefits, dole, sick pay, holiday pay, statutory benefits, a near complete absence of cheaper non EU workers to compete for jobs etc etc etc.



Now it seems fairly obvious that the downgrading of food from an essential to a whatever-free-you're-having-yourself and the certainty that the availability, choice and cost of food will remain forever the same as it is now.


It won't.



We're rapidly reaching a point there the temperate zone of both hemispheres of the world, where so much of the excess food that drives our current iteration of civilisation is produced, will be moving further north and south. So we will be looking at a huge reduction of utilisable land in the southern hemisphere and a substantial reduction in the northern hemisphere. Tie that in with ever increasing numbers being born and surviving into old age and a reduction in both land area and the ability of that land to produce enough food to feed the demand.


I can see the current demand for wildlife havens fading somewhat when the hunger start to bite, if you pardon the pun.


Again, all that information is out there and freely available so my suggestion is to enjoy the bounty while it lasts because it's not going to last long more:(

embraer170

Most hedgerows in Kerry are being destroyed. It gets worse and worse every year, with no movement to try and stop it.

Gawddawggonnit

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

It's been done on this forum ad nauseum but I'll go down through my, apparently flippant, answer again.
Firstly, farmers are price takers, we get what's left over when every other sector outside the farm gate has taken their often substantial cut. The farmers % of the retail price has fallen every year since well before I was born and will continue for some time to come. It's a well established fact so you can look it up if you desire to. The old adage
is as true now as then.



Now, we're told the public wants to have smaller farms and the countryside 'looked after'. Which is fine. Smaller farms with a smaller land area have to be more efficient with prices falling and costs rising. Instead of mixed farms, as was traditional, we are forced by smaller margins to produce more to offset fixed costs over a larger output. To do this efficiently farmers are dropping marginal products as the time cost and capital cost of diverse farm enterprises makes the whole business unviable. . In turn, that means that what would traditionally been marginal land now has to produce to help offset declining margins.

The price of milk, beef, lamb, wheat, barley etc etc etc is at the same prices they were when I started farming some decades ago. The input costs have risen and compliance costs are increasingly taking a larger portion of allocatable funds to remain in business but have no return to the person making that investment.


Ah, but says you, the subsidies...
Yeah, 'subsidies'. Well, after 3 rounds of cuts to that money (c.15%)and 15 years of inflation at the EU target inflation of 2% brings the value of that 'subsidy' down to under 50% in real terms. Now that 'subsidy' is always a handy stick to beat farmer with.

The purpose of that subsidy was to compensate farmers for producing good at lower than cost price, again those figures are easily available so work away at that if you wish. One of the reasons that farmers needed compensation was the allowing of cheaper food into the EU from countries with a negligible compliance record with the agreed standards for import into the EU. Just have a look at Brazilian beef and compare the disease presence and some, just some, of the EU prohibited substances that are freely used to produce the 'same' base product.
The main beneficiary of this policy wasn't the farmer, it was and is the consumer whose food bill now takes, on average, less than 10% of their weekly shop. Again figures are easily googled if you want.
On the other side of the subsidy equation to the farmer is the consumer. The consumer benefited with extra jobs producing goods for export to those countries we allowed the cheaper food into so their standard of living increased. Also, their disposable incomes have increased due to the aforementioned drop in food prices so double benefit for the consumer. The knock on service industry jobs, the housing demand, the whole consumer culture is fed off the cheap food prices favoured by those in power atm.


Now, it's fairly obvious Joe and Mary Bloggs want ever cheaper food so they can purchase their essentials like Sky, SUVs, highspeed broadband, two weeks in Tuscany, the weekend trip to New York for the Christmas, a bigger house than Jack and Joan, a bigger ring than John and Julie, ever more conspicuous consumption. Interestingly, there is almost no mention of the subsidies keeping their disposable incomes so high. Maternity benefits, paternity benefits, dole, sick pay, holiday pay, statutory benefits, a near complete absence of cheaper non EU workers to compete for jobs etc etc etc.



Now it seems fairly obvious that the downgrading of food from an essential to a whatever-free-you're-having-yourself and the certainty that the availability, choice and cost of food will remain forever the same as it is now.


It won't.



We're rapidly reaching a point there the temperate zone of both hemispheres of the world, where so much of the excess food that drives our current iteration of civilisation is produced, will be moving further north and south. So we will be looking at a huge reduction of utilisable land in the southern hemisphere and a substantial reduction in the northern hemisphere. Tie that in with ever increasing numbers being born and surviving into old age and a reduction in both land area and the ability of that land to produce enough food to feed the demand.


I can see the current demand for wildlife havens fading somewhat when the hunger start to bite, if you pardon the pun.


Again, all that information is out there and freely available so my suggestion is to enjoy the bounty while it lasts because it's not going to last long more:(

Good post, and no denying those points.

But but but, we’re already producing enough food for 10 billion people and there’s vast tracts of land laying idle in Eastern Europe....

Along with food getting much cheaper...so are computers, televisions etc. etc.

Maybe we should look to the TYPE of food we’re producing...?

Still waters

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

It's been done on this forum ad nauseum but I'll go down through my, apparently flippant, answer again.
Firstly, farmers are price takers, we get what's left over when every other sector outside the farm gate has taken their often substantial cut. The farmers % of the retail price has fallen every year since well before I was born and will continue for some time to come. It's a well established fact so you can look it up if you desire to. The old adage
is as true now as then.



Now, we're told the public wants to have smaller farms and the countryside 'looked after'. Which is fine. Smaller farms with a smaller land area have to be more efficient with prices falling and costs rising. Instead of mixed farms, as was traditional, we are forced by smaller margins to produce more to offset fixed costs over a larger output. To do this efficiently farmers are dropping marginal products as the time cost and capital cost of diverse farm enterprises makes the whole business unviable. . In turn, that means that what would traditionally been marginal land now has to produce to help offset declining margins.

The price of milk, beef, lamb, wheat, barley etc etc etc is at the same prices they were when I started farming some decades ago. The input costs have risen and compliance costs are increasingly taking a larger portion of allocatable funds to remain in business but have no return to the person making that investment.


Ah, but says you, the subsidies...
Yeah, 'subsidies'. Well, after 3 rounds of cuts to that money (c.15%)and 15 years of inflation at the EU target inflation of 2% brings the value of that 'subsidy' down to under 50% in real terms. Now that 'subsidy' is always a handy stick to beat farmer g more:(

Very long winded, very not to the point, and again blaming EU policy on Joe and Mary bloggs, do you honestly think the normal working Joe soap can dictate the price of produce, they buy what's on the shelf and they pay the price marked, maybe there is too many farmers producing too much food ?
Do farmers go to suppliers with the intention of buying the most expensive fodder for there cattle, you can't be that naive to think the buck stops with the end buyer, and I mentioned nothing about subsidies and I dont intend to beat anyone with the "subsidy stick"

Do you begrudge the bloggs the better things in life like the holiday in Tuscany or the nice car or the big ring because the EU and the factories/supermarkets dictate what farmers get paid, that's no one fault only farmers and their incompetent representatives who bend over backwards to keep Europe happy

gozunda

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

Good post, and no denying those points.

But but but, we’re already producing enough food for 10 billion people and there’s vast tracts of land laying idle in Eastern Europe....

Along with food getting much cheaper...so are computers, televisions etc. etc.

Maybe we should look to the TYPE of food we’re producing...?

What do you suggest?

Say my name

Ban the electric fence and go back to sheep and barb wire.
Then insist on the sheep and barb being a foot out from the base of the ditch not on top of the ditch like some do.

Unfortunately I've done it myself and the damage is done now. The electric fence requires yearly herbicide spraying and unknown even maybe unique plant species have been wiped out in the maintenance of the electric fence.

Gone forever ... with the fauna that depended on them.

Pristine steel and concrete sheds with no habitat for house sparrows, barn owls, house martins, swallows don't help either.
Poisoning slugs and rodents, the start of many a food chain.

Gardens manicured to perfection with wildlife seen as destructive and road verges sprayed with glyphosate.

Progress.

Panch18

gozunda wrote: »

I'm on the planet where there is way too many humans - all blaming each other. Which one are you on?

This is the simple fact of the matter, they’re are too many people on the planet

They can talk all they want about vegan, eat less meat and dairy, carbon emissions now bla bla. It’s a joke to be honest. Probably the greatest con the world has ever seen

Panch18

I have to say also that I think there is a lot of rubbish being spoken about decline in species, loss of habitat etc etc

On our little patch of the world I can say for definite that the small bird population is booming, the chorus coming from the choir every summer morning is breathtaking. I regularly see owls and various types of hawks etc. Foxes are so common they would nearly walk up to you in broad daylight, hares are everywhere

No doubt there are some species and some areas that need a lot of work, but I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as is being made out, at least in our neck of the woods

gozunda

Panch18 wrote: »

This is the simple fact of the matter, they’re are too many people on the planet
They can talk all they want about vegan, eat less meat and dairy, carbon emissions now bla bla. It’s a joke to be honest. Probably the greatest con the world has ever seen

Unfortunately we've got to the stage that there are those who have taken it on themselves to go around kicking the deckchairs and telling others it's all their fault and getting morally outraged by everything that offends them. They more often I encounter these eejits the less patience I'm left with tbh.

I remember in the late 80' and early '90s there was a big push for towards saving the planet, saving the whales etc etc. All that then got buried in the global boom and bust and the next thing the new kids on the block are back beating everyone over the head with the same craic and letting on like that nobody ever thought about anything like it before and they now have all the answers. :rolleyes:

howsshenow

Great topic and well done car99 for raising it.
The huge expansion in Dairy farming is clearly the main cause of the destruction. A dairy Farmer will happily pay crazy amounts of money on land "reclamation" moving hills/ bogs whatever is in their way justifying it because it might cost no more than to buy a few acres somewhere else.
All in the pursuit of plains of ryegrass, cheerlead on by Teagasc, IFA & co; not to forget "origin green"..

But never fear Ear to the Ground will have a heartwarming slot for a unique Farmer who has a couple of wide hedgerows for the wildlife just to reassure the urban viewer that "all" farmers love wildlife! Lol
It's only going to get worse I'm afraid.

jhenno78

Panch18 wrote: »

This is the simple fact of the matter, they’re are too many people on the planet

They can talk all they want about vegan, eat less meat and dairy, carbon emissions now bla bla. It’s a joke to be honest. Probably the greatest con the world has ever seen

World population is expected to level-off in about 100 years(somewhere around the 10-11 billion mark) and probably drop slowly after that. Not really much to be done about that, bar maybe pushing for more education funding in Africa.

I wouldn't go bashing people for those lifestyle choices, but at the same time it's true to say it's government policies and (lack of) regulations that have a much bigger effect on the environment than individuals putting a bit more thought into their shopping.

jhenno78

_Brian wrote: »

The holistic plan for Ireland should recognise each area for its strengths and strive to maximise each to its full potential. Marginal farmland should get supports to further encourage and nurture wildlife farming in a low intensity structure in parallel. Where fertile suitable area should be supported to maximise the output without detriment to the environment.

A one size fits all approach is where we fall down, that results in a mosh mash and no area is maximised to its potential.

I'd agree with you that it would make more sense to have a horse-for-course attitude to things. I'm not too sure how it would work though?
One part is that folks don't much like being told what to do.
Another is how does all this get planned?

Something that comes to mind is the farmers in Leitrim who are protesting against forestry:
Now, I do think Coilte are toxic - obsessed with Stika and clear-felling...but these guys don't seem to be against that, they're blaming the forestry for the decline in rural villages and communities. There's a lot of reasons for that (which I don't want to get into because it would be a rant) but forestry really isn't one of them.

Forestry done well would be by far the best thing for large parts of the country, but what chance would it have with Coilte on one side of it and pitch-forks on the other.

gozunda

howsshenow wrote: »

Great topic and well done car99 for raising it.
The huge expansion in Dairy farming is clearly the main cause of the destruction. A dairy Farmer will happily pay crazy amounts of money on land "reclamation" moving hills/ bogs whatever is in their way justifying it because it might cost no more than to buy a few acres somewhere else. All in the pursuit of plains of ryegrass, cheerlead on by Teagasc, IFA & co; not to forget "origin green"..But never fear Ear to the Ground will have a heartwarming slot for a unique Farmer who has a couple of wide hedgerows for the wildlife just to reassure the urban viewer that "all" farmers love wildlife! Lol
It's only going to get worse I'm afraid.

As I think it's been pointed out much of it is fueled by perception of change. Things do not stay the same over time. Production methods change, populations change, look at the changes for example in the rise of private transport, road building and in the spread of urban areas and associated infrastructure. 170 years ago Ireland had a population of 8 million and ecologically was stripped to the bone. A huge population decrease less than a 50 years later and yet the population continued to have a huge effect on the environment with hedges being stripped of available firewood especially in areas with no turf with Bord na mona and those buying peat products later taking most of the nations bogs with them. And it continues again with the pressure from a growing standard of lifestyle and global demands. Too fecking easy for the pitchfork brigade to arrive out with torches baying for the blood of their favourite enemy - that nasty evil hedge destroying farmer hell bent on ravaging all before him. Wheres me oil can? Aaarggghhh ...:rolleyes:

patsy_mccabe

Just have a look at your bins just before collection. Scary stuff.

howsshenow

Re:...Too fecking easy for the pitchfork brigade to arrive out with torches baying for the blood of their favourite enemy - that nasty evil hedge destroying farmer..

Absolutely not, everyone is entitled to make a living and good luck to them.
It's just that with the scale of the mechanisation and labour saving technology that's available today there are some farmers expanding just because "they can".. "Sher what's an extra twenty cows etc in a modern parlour/robot, why not an extra fifty and we can zero graze an out farm etc.

There is a growing level of greed entering into the sector and the environment and landscape are the loosers.

_Brian

jhenno78 wrote: »

I'd agree with you that it would make more sense to have a horse-for-course attitude to things. I'm not too sure how it would work though?
One part is that folks don't much like being told what to do.
Another is how does all this get planned?

Something that comes to mind is the farmers in Leitrim who are protesting against forestry:
Now, I do think Coilte are toxic - obsessed with Stika and clear-felling...but these guys don't seem to be against that, they're blaming the forestry for the decline in rural villages and communities. There's a lot of reasons for that (which I don't want to get into because it would be a rant) but forestry really isn't one of them.

Forestry done well would be by far the best thing for large parts of the country, but what chance would it have with Coilte on one side of it and pitch-forks on the other.

If we were creating large swathes of native natural forests things would be different. They would be a haven for wildlife and also a major attraction for tourists regarding hiking and cycling. Extra tourists bring money to keep villages going and locals happier.

Gawddawggonnit

gozunda wrote: »

What do you suggest?

We’ve lost the consumer to the food processors. Consumers are brainwashed into believing that food is inedible if it isn’t processed to infinity.

The FOOD that we produce is called a COMMODITY from which processors make ‘nutritious, wholesome and natural food’.

Interestingly change is on the way. More and more people are aware of the provenance and even the ethics of the food they eat. We need to buy into this.

Don’t believe the shyte that Teagasc et al came out with before dairy quotas were abolished...” farmers have a responsibility to produce loads of extra food to feed all those extra billions of people by 2050”...we already produce enough now for 10 billion people!

The low price of food, whether it be beef, dairy, poultry etc, is due to the double whammy of overproduction and processors taking ‘ownership’ of OUR food.

IMO, this thread is a conversation that needs to take place as a matter of urgency...farmers need to be educated initially, and then the consumer can be won back!

_Brian

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

We’ve lost the consumer to the food processors. Consumers are brainwashed into believing that food is inedible if it isn’t processed to infinity.

The FOOD that we produce is called a COMMODITY from which processors make ‘nutritious, wholesome and natural food’.

Interestingly change is on the way. More and more people are aware of the provenance and even the ethics of the food they eat. We need to buy into this.

Don’t believe the shyte that Teagasc et al came out with before dairy quotas were abolished...” farmers have a responsibility to produce loads of extra food to feed all those extra billions of people by 2050”...we already produce enough now for 10 billion people!

The low price of food, whether it be beef, dairy, poultry etc, is due to the double whammy of overproduction and processors taking ‘ownership’ of OUR food.

IMO, this thread is a conversation that needs to take place as a matter of urgency...farmers need to be educated initially, and then the consumer can be won back!

Great post !
The processors have convinced consumers they are the source of information on food with cost and convenience being paramount.

Irish people have lost their food culture, too few know about food and quality cooking. People have been convinced it’s impossible to cook healthy good meals with local produce which again turns them back to the processors.

Ironically vegan culture is also being hyjacked by commercial interests, it’s seen as an emerging cash cow.

jhenno78

_Brian wrote: »

If we were creating large swathes of native natural forests things would be different. They would be a haven for wildlife and also a major attraction for tourists regarding hiking and cycling. Extra tourists bring money to keep villages going and locals happier.

I'd love to see all of that too, I just fear it wouldn't happen that smoothly and a lot of fingers will keep getting pointed in the wrong directions

Chisler2

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

You won't like the answer....


Pay more for food.

The reality of late capitalism is that food should be valued commensurate with its production and distribution cost. In this system the consumer pays the "asking price" or does without/buys an alternative. In Ireland this has resulted in the producer being steered by subsidies, paid a pittance and deprived through food-processing legislation of any alternative distribution-chain other than the big factory system.


Do you feel the major retailers should pay the producer more and charge the consumer more.............and is this ever likely? Should government set prices?...........an intervention in the free market. Should the producers' organisations set the terms?


The OP suggests food production is over-intensive THUS the value of a plentiful commodity is low, and that over-production is at the cost of broader environmental health which - as yesterday's frightening Biodiversity Report signals, is at tipping-point in destruction of invertebrates.


Would you expand on the "pay more" suggestion and how/where that would be implemented as this is a deeply serious issue.

Birdnuts

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

We’ve lost the consumer to the food processors. Consumers are brainwashed into believing that food is inedible if it isn’t processed to infinity.

The FOOD that we produce is called a COMMODITY from which processors make ‘nutritious, wholesome and natural food’.

Interestingly change is on the way. More and more people are aware of the provenance and even the ethics of the food they eat. We need to buy into this.

Don’t believe the shyte that Teagasc et al came out with before dairy quotas were abolished...” farmers have a responsibility to produce loads of extra food to feed all those extra billions of people by 2050”...we already produce enough now for 10 billion people!

The low price of food, whether it be beef, dairy, poultry etc, is due to the double whammy of overproduction and processors taking ‘ownership’ of OUR food.

IMO, this thread is a conversation that needs to take place as a matter of urgency...farmers need to be educated initially, and then the consumer can be won back!

Nail on the head there - throw in the massive amount of food waste(up to 50% according to many studies) and the obseity epidemic, and its clear the whole system is broken:(

dodderangler

TooOldBoots wrote: »

The reality is most Wildlife is in serious decline. Nothing can be done about it really, its a greed and consumer society now.

Depending on the part I do country you are in. I’m not a farmer but as a avid hunter and angler I’ve never seen the wildlife so high in numbers. We’ve buzzards everywhere, rabbits in abundance, plenty of hares, Swarmed with deer, even seen 3 boar aswell . Foxes everywhere. I’ve hedgehogs our my back garden even. Frogs have taking a hit I will say that. And there’s little kestrels about now but that may be down to the buzzard population exploding. But other than that I’ve never seen such an abundance of animals. I won’t be including pheasant in Thisbe as their released from gun clubs. There’s no such thing as a wild pheasant anymore. Most never make it to their second season.

K.G.

dodderangler wrote: »

TooOldBoots wrote: »

The reality is most Wildlife is in serious decline. Nothing can be done about it really, its a greed and consumer society now.

Depending on the part I do country you are in. I’m not a farmer but as a avid hunter and angler I’ve never seen the wildlife so high in numbers. We’ve buzzards everywhere, rabbits in abundance, plenty of hares, Swarmed with deer, even seen 3 boar aswell . Foxes everywhere. I’ve hedgehogs our my back garden even. Frogs have taking a hit I will say that. And there’s little kestrels about now but that may be down to the buzzard population exploding. But other than that I’ve never seen such an abundance of animals. I won’t be including pheasant in Thisbe as their released from gun clubs. There’s no such thing as a wild pheasant anymore. Most never make it to their second season.

i have to agree with this .i see alot more wild life around now but maybe thats because i m gettin older and slowing down.a tip for ye if you want to see more wildlife get out of your cars

Capercaillie

Whole society is to blame not just farming. Roadside hedges being flailed to an inch above ground, OPW destroying rivers, gardens being covered in concrete, raised/blanket bogs being strip mined, inadequate sewage treatment plants or sewage left flow untreated...

Farming has also large responsibility for extinction crisis. Eligibility rules for BFP incentivise habitat destruction: scrub removal, land drainage, pond removal etc. Farmers that farm in a true environmentally manner are not rewarded adequately. We have agri-environmental schemes like GLAS which are watered down as much as possible and payments are capped. We have the Nitrates Directive that gives out derogations like sweets.

Birdnuts

dodderangler wrote: »

Depending on the part I do country you are in. I’m not a farmer but as a avid hunter and angler I’ve never seen the wildlife so high in numbers. We’ve buzzards everywhere, rabbits in abundance, plenty of hares, Swarmed with deer, even seen 3 boar aswell . Foxes everywhere. I’ve hedgehogs our my back garden even. Frogs have taking a hit I will say that. And there’s little kestrels about now but that may be down to the buzzard population exploding. But other than that I’ve never seen such an abundance of animals. I won’t be including pheasant in Thisbe as their released from gun clubs. There’s no such thing as a wild pheasant anymore. Most never make it to their second season.

Yes - it certainly varies depending on what part of the country your in. There is no doubt though that intensive dairy areas are in the main "Green Deserts" and personally I'm glad I don't live in such an area as I would find it rather depressing. In contrast they are still wonderfull parts of the country that still have a rich mix of habitats - my particular favourite is the Turlough country along the borders of Mayo,Galway and Roscommon.

keepalive213

It all boils down to money at the end of the day, need and greed... Humans act like a planetary virus, affecting everything we touch.
Life is a precious thing, to be killing off species is an abomination.

Willfarman

keepalive213 wrote: »

It all boils down to money at the end of the day, need and greed... Humans act like a planetary virus, affecting everything we touch.
Life is a precious thing, to be killing off species is an abomination.

Greed is indeed the cause of a lot of the problems in our industry. It’s a remarkable life skill to know when you are snug.

grassroot1

_Brian wrote: »

I think it’s Ben shown the world over that provide the correct environment protected from pollution and hunting, wildlife and nature will flourish and thrive. This seems the case from African planes to coral reefs.

You clearly know nothing of the contribution of hunting to the survival of species both in Africa and in this country.
Farmers that have an interest in game shooting are more likely to preserve hedgerows and copses purely for hunting but this also preserves habitat for other species.
In Africa if some overpaid and overfed american wants to pay 30000 dollars to shoot a bull elephant well the local tribes will make sure there is one for him to shoot.
If elephants didnt have a hunting value the local tribes people would be less tolerant of destruction to crops and property. It also helps protect the elephant from the relentless damage caused by ivory poaching.
In a converse way hunting protects wildlife rather like asking for rare breed meat helps protect and increase rare breeds.
In the last ten years the NARGC one of Irelands largest shooting bodies has funded conservation and pond restoration projects to the tune of 100k. All funding is provided voluntary and without government assistance.It is done for hunting but benefits lots of other non huntable species.

Willfarman

The boys that control foxes greycrows magpies are indeed a big help but why anyone would want to shoot a wild duck or pheasant is beyond me. A nesting pair had returned to marlhole on a neighbouring field 2 years in a row until a fool shot the duck last year. Why or what the Fock did that achieve!

dodderangler

Willfarman wrote: »

The boys that control foxes greycrows magpies are indeed a big help but why anyone would want to shoot a wild duck or pheasant is beyond me. A nesting pair had returned to marlhole on a neighbouring field 2 years in a row until a fool shot the duck last year. Why or what the Fock did that achieve!

It is hard to differentiate between a. Wild duck and released duck. A lot of duck now are released duck. Especially around areas not on lake land. Like marshlands etc. But in regards to pheasant they were only bred for hunting. And are not native to Ireland. Besides they taste like crap anyway