Fields of lush green grass and nothing else.

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

Willfarman

These ducks had successfully bred twice two years in a row. The young ones never seemed to make it to adulthood from what I could see though. Bloody fox loves duck! The water hens always seem to make it though.

gozunda

Willfarman wrote: »

These ducks had successfully bred twice two years in a row. The young ones never seemed to make it to adulthood from what I could see though. Bloody fox loves duck! The water hens always seem to make it though.

Personally I love pheasant. Very tasty It's an introduced species that seems to do well here even where it goes wild and breeds.

As for duck - I have a wetland area where for years I've encouraged wild duck to nest and breed. I dont hunt them btw. Was wiped out last year by foxes ...

Chisler2

This issue needs to be elevated beyond the fantasy of yokels with pitchforks. Here is an excerpt from a lead article in today's Guardian written by Molly Scott Cato who is a member of the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee:-

"I have lost count of the number of times I have begun meetings with what feels like a sermon on the Armageddon taking place in our countryside. I am always greeted with patient, patronising smiles from many of my fellow MEPs, before they go on to ignore the warnings and refuse to limit the use of pesticides in our fields.

Some of the members of this committee are themselves farmers who have grown increasingly dependent on powerful and toxic pesticides. But others have taken the agribusiness shilling and believe that their role in policymaking is simply to support the corporations that sell these poisons.

(snip) What might accurately be dubbed insectageddon is being driven by the agrichemicals industry. This situation is compounded by compliant politicians and policymakers who fall prey to lobbying pressure and then refuse to implement science-driven policy to protect wildlife. This has meant that over the past five decades conventional farmers have forgotten the natural systems they once relied on to control pests. Non-organic agricultural systems are highly dependent on chemicals, so feeding a vicious circle.

But there is a legal route out of this – in Europe at least. Since 2009 the EU has adopted the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive. This aims to reduce the risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment, while prioritising the use of alternative approaches or techniques such as non-chemical methods.

However, because it is a directive rather than regulation it requires implementation in national law, and the vicious circle that has led to high levels of chemical dependency also operates at national level, meaning that member states have been slow to implement policies that reduce pesticide use.

And the agrichemical industry is literally writing pesticide assessments that are then presented as the work of regulators. A recent report exposed how EU regulators based a decision to relicense controversial glyphosate on an assessment plagiarised from industry reports. Around 50% of some chapters were actually a copy-and-paste job from papers Monsanto and other agrichemical corporates had written.

_Brian

Chisler2 wrote: »

This issue needs to be elevated beyond the fantasy of yokels with pitchforks. .

Quote whatever you want, it’s a long distance from the EU parliament to the back fields of an farm in Cavan or Leitrim, if you don’t engage and work with the “yokels” as you call us then nothing will be successful. Just to correct you, I’ve only one operating pitchfork, having broken the handle in the other recently.

There is also a fantasy that we can ban everything and take the hit on yields with no ill effect. It would result in less food security and more foods being introduced from areas farmed with no controls or worse areas where prime rainforest is being felled to produce it cheaply.

Chisler2

_Brian wrote: »

Quote whatever you want, it’s a long distance from the EU parliament to the back fields of an farm in Cavan or Leitrim, if you don’t engage and work with the “yokels” as you call us then nothing will be successful. Just to correct you, I’ve only one operating pitchfork, having broken the handle in the other recently.

There is also a fantasy that we can ban everything and take the hit on yields with no ill effect. It would result in less food security and more foods being introduced from areas farmed with no controls or worse areas where prime rainforest is being felled to produce it cheaply.

I am not calling "you" YOKELS. I picked up on an image from an earlier post of locals with pitchforks on one side and Coillte on the other in the Leitrim standoff.



Is the counter-position to "concern about loss of environmental biodiversity" that the optimal productive future for Irish farming is monoculture based on chemical and genetically-modifying technologies controlling all variables to produce food faster and in greater quantity?



.........and that the environment in which this occurs (soil, grass, air and water quality etc.) are irrelevant as they shall be superceded by this technology and these methods?


Have I understood correctly? If so, there are examples of the outcome of that approach already.......for example the USA. Beef export prices have dropped since 2017 and the meat is full of hormones and antibiotic.



Where is the increased Irish production intended for - given the low retail price and rising production costs for the farmer? I am puzzled by the argument that investment in, and caretaking of, environmental biodiversity would hit yields. Surely the point is it would sustain or increase quality?

Buford T. Justice XIX

Chisler2 wrote: »

I am not calling "you" YOKELS. I picked up on an image from an earlier post of locals with pitchforks on one side and Coillte on the other in the Leitrim standoff.



Is the counter-position to "concern about loss of environmental biodiversity" that the optimal productive future for Irish farming is monoculture based on chemical and genetically-modifying technologies controlling all variables to produce food faster and in greater quantity?



.........and that the environment in which this occurs (soil, grass, air and water quality etc.) are irrelevant as they shall be superceded by this technology and these methods?


Have I understood correctly? If so, there are examples of the outcome of that approach already.......for example the USA. Beef export prices have dropped since 2017 and the meat is full of hormones and antibiotic.



Where is the increased Irish production intended for - given the low retail price and rising production costs for the farmer? I am puzzled by the argument that investment in, and caretaking of, environmental biodiversity would hit yields. Surely the point is it would sustain or increase quality?

This type of comment annoys the bejaysus out of me. It's not an attack on you, Chisler, just that commentary in general.

All food is full of hormones, every single piece of food that passes peoples mouths contains hormones. It has to because they are the regulators that control chemical processes in the cells of plants and animals.


Hormones implanted in US beef has had a huge role in improving feed conversion efficiency in stock and has a negligible risk, once properly regulated and controlled. The scare stories about hormones remind me of the negative commentary about vaccines though with hugely less implications for peoples health.

Capercaillie

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

This type of comment annoys the bejaysus out of me. It's not an attack on you, Chisler, just that commentary in general.

All food is full of hormones, every single piece of food that passes peoples mouths contains hormones. It has to because they are the regulators that control chemical processes in the cells of plants and animals.


Hormones implanted in US beef has had a huge role in improving feed conversion efficiency in stock and has a negligible risk, once properly regulated and controlled. The scare stories about hormones remind me of the negative commentary about vaccines though with hugely less implications for peoples health.

Waffle from IFA/DAFM about hormones in meat is for trade reasons only. Same can be said about GMO.

gozunda

Capercaillie wrote: »

Waffle from IFA/DAFM about hormones in meat is for trade reasons only. Same can be said about GMO.

Even "plant based foodstuffs" contain hormones. It's the oft repeated rubbish you see from the same community falsely claiming that irish meat contains antibiotics and added hormones which really get my goat. You can ask him if you dont believe me!

Interesting article here

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-humans-gut-microbes-hormones.html

Gawddawggonnit

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

This type of comment annoys the bejaysus out of me. It's not an attack on you, Chisler, just that commentary in general.

All food is full of hormones, every single piece of food that passes peoples mouths contains hormones. It has to because they are the regulators that control chemical processes in the cells of plants and animals.


Hormones implanted in US beef has had a huge role in improving feed conversion efficiency in stock and has a negligible risk, once properly regulated and controlled. The scare stories about hormones remind me of the negative commentary about vaccines though with hugely less implications for peoples health.

+1.

Cattlepen

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

This type of comment annoys the bejaysus out of me. It's not an attack on you, Chisler, just that commentary in general.

All food is full of hormones, every single piece of food that passes peoples mouths contains hormones. It has to because they are the regulators that control chemical processes in the cells of plants and animals.


Hormones implanted in US beef has had a huge role in improving feed conversion efficiency in stock and has a negligible risk, once properly regulated and controlled. The scare stories about hormones remind me of the negative commentary about vaccines though with hugely less implications for peoples health.

In fairness to the man Buford he has a point about US beef. It is full of growth promoters and antibiotics for the most part. Hormonal growth promoters are used for making more money and the antibiotics are used to stop losing money through Animals being exposed a crap diet full of micotoxins because it’s the cheapest way of production. When Ralgro and finaplix were legal here it wasn’t good enough for the real smart boyos and they went and sourced clonbuterol through very nefarious sources. We don’t need to hear that growth promoters are not that bad.i think the EU was right to ban them. Good riddance to them