Fields of lush green grass and nothing else.

Capercaillie

White Clover wrote: »

I get what you're trying to achieve, and admire you for it, but I think wrangler's point that wildlife will have to adapt would be my view too. I'm sure that down through the centuries, they have adapted to changes, and will do so again.

Let them "eat cake" approach, unfortunately doesn't really work. Don't think a corncrake is going to adapt to a meadow that's cut in May or June, I wish they could.

older by the day

wrangler wrote: »

Lano Lynn wrote: »

u can't blame the green party for that .the dept of ag establish the geac specifications the irony that most of the areas deducted or penalised on most farms are the areas of most biodiversity so I am looking forward to having my eligible area reinstated and a significant bonus for maintaining them …….I need some unicorns to qualify for grazing though:D

The EU did an audit and found thousands of claimed acres not eligible, roads, sites not taken out, even one farmer claiming for a lake, Northern Ireland applied an across the board penalty, however our department only penalised the messsers.
What choice had they, They had to stop overclaiming

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ireland-to-be-fined-63m-for-false-farm-payment-claims-355803.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-15631617

Here we go, IFA a stood idle when the small farmers were being fined for having to farm on poor land. Look at them all excited no when the big farmers are getting capped on there sfp. If the Ifa had supported the smaller farmer that time, they could have been a lot more habitat untouched around the country.

Capercaillie

older by the day wrote: »

Here we go, IFA a stood idle when the small farmers were being fined for having to farm on poor land. Look at them all excited no when the big farmers are getting capped on there sfp. If the Ifa had supported the smaller farmer that time, they could have been a lot more habitat untouched around the country.

Yip, IFA demanded that GLAS payments were capped, they were worried Pillar I payments would be cut if too much money put in Pillar II.

wrangler

older by the day wrote: »

Here we go, IFA a stood idle when the small farmers were being fined for having to farm on poor land. Look at them all excited no when the big farmers are getting capped on there sfp. If the Ifa had supported the smaller farmer that time, they could have been a lot more habitat untouched around the country.

Why fine the farmers that were doing it right, IFA didn't stand idly by, farmers didn't get half the penalties they should've got, as far as I can remember they should've been penalised for all the years that they submitted ineligible land, Ithink they were only fined for two years, Big or small didn't make any difference, good or bad land, too many were chancing their arm.
I say again why fine the farmers that were doing it right...... what's the point of following the rules if people that are messing expect you to take the hit for them.
Taking out sites and continuing to claim and there was worse than that.......like WTF
Paying subsidies for neglected land wasn't what the SFP was for, it clearly states good agiculture condition

wrangler

Capercaillie wrote: »

Yip, IFA demanded that GLAS payments were capped, they were worried Pillar I payments would be cut if too much money put in Pillar II.

That's bull**** and you know it
Larger farmers would take it all if it wasn't capped , is that what you want.
I'm no genius and I've never had a subsidy penalty, can't be that hard,
BPM WILL SORT ALL FOR YOU.......AS IF

Capercaillie

wrangler wrote: »

That's bull**** and you know it
Larger farmers would take it all if it wasn't capped , is that what you want.
I'm no genius and I've never had a subsidy penalty, can't be that hard,
BPM WILL SORT ALL FOR YOU.......AS IF

GLAS was also manipulated by IFA so farmers with pathetic examples of wildlife habitat could claim payments. GLAS should have been results based, reward the farmer with the best habitats/greatest number of threatened species. GLAS is a joke and pathetically continually cited by groups such as Origin Green (Origin Fraud)/IFA as some great agri scheme..

wrangler

Capercaillie wrote: »

GLAS was also manipulated by IFA so farmers with pathetic examples of wildlife habitat could claim payments. GLAS should have been results based, reward the farmer with the best habitats/greatest number of threatened species. GLAS is a joke and pathetically continually cited by groups such as Origin Green (Origin Fraud)/IFA as some great agri scheme..

Typical , talk down all the brands, the quality symbols, I've had loads of foreign buyers on my farm and they're well impressed by the green grass, farm records, quality and cleanliness of the stock,
and people who are clueless then run down the irish beef and lamb industry on social media, I'm not talking about vegans but a worse shower.
They're like a young fellow knocking the old house on the farm and not having the where withall to build a new one.
Thankfully I'm not depending on beef and lamb for an income now, if I was I'd be very disappointed with the image that is being portrayed of your produce by irish farmers.
Talk down the products if you like, processors only want a margin and they'll have that at €2/kg the same as €5/kg

Birdnuts

wrangler wrote: »

Typical , talk down all the brands, the quality symbols, I've had loads of foreign buyers on my farm and they're well impressed by the green grass, farm records, quality and cleanliness of the stock,
and people who are clueless then run down the irish beef and lamb industry on social media, I'm not talking about vegans but a worse shower.
They're like a young fellow knocking the old house on the farm and not having the where withall to build a new one.
Thankfully I'm not depending on beef and lamb for an income now, if I was I'd be very disappointed with the image that is being portrayed of your produce by irish farmers.
Talk down the products if you like, processors only want a margin and they'll have that at €2/kg the same as €5/kg

Theres legitimate questions to be asked about the basis of the likes "Origin Green" - if its not based on solid data and fact, then it will end badly and do permanent damage to brand Ireland. As it is data from the likes of the EPA etc. which was widely reported last summer does not tally with that element of Bord Bia's marketing. Pulling the wool over consumers eyes is not a good marketing strategy in the long run. New Zealand went down a similar route with labels for this, that and the other but ended up with the "Dirty Dairy" tag when the reality of the industry was exposed!!

older by the day

Ah birdnuts, in fairness, an educated man like you, should be trying to think of ways to help keep the "family farm" system going here in Ireland. It's better for the rural economy and the environment. I'm up here at three tonight watching a cow calving and il wait until I give the calf a drink. Please don't confuse the average Irish farmer with what happens in New Zealand. Glas and reps are a help to the environment,. Instead of people knocking us, can't you think of ideas that farmers can use to help the environment.

gozunda

Birdnuts wrote: »

Theres legitimate questions to be asked about the basis of the likes "Origin Green" - if its not based on solid data and fact, then it will end badly and do permanent damage to brand Ireland. As it is data from the likes of the EPA etc. which was widely reported last summer does not tally with that element of Bord Bia's marketing. Pulling the wool over consumers eyes is not a good marketing strategy in the long run. New Zealand went down a similar route with labels for this, that and the other but ended up with the "Dirty Dairy" tag when the reality of the industry was exposed!!

Birdnuts you never appear to have anything positive ever about agriculture here tbh. I see plenty of neighbours doing work for conservation, wildlife and ecology and farming as well. Knocking everyone all the time gets a bit tiresome tbh. I know well what group of extremists use the 'dirty dairy' for their agenda. Their a dirty shower of cnuts themselves.

Gawddawggonnit

Birdnuts wrote: »

Theres legitimate questions to be asked about the basis of the likes "Origin Green" - if its not based on solid data and fact, then it will end badly and do permanent damage to brand Ireland. As it is data from the likes of the EPA etc. which was widely reported last summer does not tally with that element of Bord Bia's marketing. Pulling the wool over consumers eyes is not a good marketing strategy in the long run. New Zealand went down a similar route with labels for this, that and the other but ended up with the "Dirty Dairy" tag when the reality of the industry was exposed!!

+1.

screamer

It’s very simple really, farms that are not viable need to stop farming, and return to natural habitat. If you need subsidies to keep your business going, then it’s time to draw a line under it. Pointless to be spending more on keeping a farm afloat than it earns back, stupid even. That goes for any business.

Yes prices will rise, but then demand will also fall, so intensity wouldn’t be needed.
I do agree intensive farming does irradiate habitat for wild animals, course it does.

Panch18

Birdnuts wrote: »

Theres legitimate questions to be asked about the basis of the likes "Origin Green" - if its not based on solid data and fact, then it will end badly and do permanent damage to brand Ireland. As it is data from the likes of the EPA etc. which was widely reported last summer does not tally with that element of Bord Bia's marketing. Pulling the wool over consumers eyes is not a good marketing strategy in the long run. New Zealand went down a similar route with labels for this, that and the other but ended up with the "Dirty Dairy" tag when the reality of the industry was exposed!!

A bit of an ignorant post really I believe birdnuts

Take a look around at the shape some other countries are in and how they produce food and it would make you glad your from ireland

wrangler

Birdnuts wrote: »

Theres legitimate questions to be asked about the basis of the likes "Origin Green" - if its not based on solid data and fact, then it will end badly and do permanent damage to brand Ireland. As it is data from the likes of the EPA etc. which was widely reported last summer does not tally with that element of Bord Bia's marketing. Pulling the wool over consumers eyes is not a good marketing strategy in the long run. New Zealand went down a similar route with labels for this, that and the other but ended up with the "Dirty Dairy" tag when the reality of the industry was exposed!!

When bord bia were bringing clients here I'd never need any more notice than to ensure I was here, they've seen my sheep lambing indoors in the sheep hotel as one crowd called it, they've seen them out on the green grass, all sheep tagged, Hedges I've sowed, If other farmers are too lazy to be like that they should be penalised alright, but you see the criticism here when IFA wouldn't defend fraudulent claims.
As far as I'm concerned there's enough habitats on my farm, plenty of big ditches well breasted every year as well as new hedges for sheltering newborn lambs, wildlife can adapt or get out

gozunda

screamer wrote: »

It’s very simple really, farms that are not viable need to stop farming, and return to natural habitat. If you need subsidies to keep your business going, then it’s time to draw a line under it. Pointless to be spending more on keeping a farm afloat than it earns back, stupid even. That goes for any business. Yes prices will rise, but then demand will also fall, so intensity wouldn’t be needed.
I do agree intensive farming does irradiate habitat for wild animals, course it does.

No screamer. It's not that simple really. There are plenty of farmers who farm and work off farm. Many of these smaller farms are viable as much as someone working in any other sector. Many large intensive farms are profitable. And the old bugbear about subsidies. Subsidies are provided to many different sectors for different reasons. Roads are subsidised. Subsidies are provided for forestry. Subsidies are provided for environmental improvements and for water quality etc. A lot of employment is subsidised by the government. So what's your point? That you just dont like farmers recieving these? Why is that?

'Irradiate' what? - I kinda get the idea you're not sure what you're talking about tbhm

yosemitesam1

Panch18 wrote: »

A bit of an ignorant post really I believe birdnuts

Take a look around at the shape some other countries are in and how they produce food and it would make you glad your from ireland

We're miles behind the best out there from an environmental/biodiversity POV. At best we're average.

grassroot1

wrangler wrote:

That's bull**** and you know it Larger farmers would take it all if it wasn't capped , is that what you want. I'm no genius and I've never had a subsidy penalty, can't be that hard, BPM WILL SORT ALL FOR YOU.......AS IF

Jaysus Wrangler the BPM is getting between you and your sleep.

wrangler

Capercaillie wrote: »

GLAS was also manipulated by IFA so farmers with pathetic examples of wildlife habitat could claim payments. GLAS should have been results based, reward the farmer with the best habitats/greatest number of threatened species. GLAS is a joke and pathetically continually cited by groups such as Origin Green (Origin Fraud)/IFA as some great agri scheme..

When I was in IFA I was always promoting good farming practise, not subsidising lazy farmers to neglect their land, you must be thinking of a different farm organisation.....is there a lazy farmers association.
Glas gives a good balance on well run farms, again it's not compulsory, if you don't like it you can ...off

Capercaillie

wrangler wrote: »

When I was in IFA I was always promoting good farming practise, not subsidising lazy farmers to neglect their land, you must be thinking of a different farm organisation.....is there a lazy farmers association.
Glas gives a good balance on well run farms, again it's not compulsory, if you don't like it you can ...off

I'm a part time farmer and don't neglect my farm and put a huge amount of effort in creating/maintaining habitats on it. True though you would probably see it as worthless and your cronies in IFA see it likewise....

wrangler

grassroot1 wrote: »

Jaysus Wrangler the BPM is getting between you and your sleep.

It'd be alright if they weren't trying to undermine the whole agriculture industry with their whinge fests, you could either support them or not, but any farmer that respects what we produce can't ignore them now,
They've done nothing only harm so far, A lot of farmers around the country entertained foreign buyers for Bord Bia over the years and Bord Bia do promotions all aver europe to build relationships, and people who probably have very little to do with farming have been given a platform to tear down the industry on social media. Bord bia don't set the prices but posts on social media show how ignorant the posters are of that fact.
I said months ago that farmers need representation and didn't care what organisation represented us, but I do now, also I recommended that BPM speak To ICSA as they had an infrastructure in place, offices etc. Lucky for ICSA they didn't
I'm sure small processors are absolutely jumping to do business with them,
sure why not, it's risk free processing after all, the farmer'll be taking the risk.
Do you think the supermarkets are ignoring accusations, they now have the best ammo ever to pull down prices

wrangler

Capercaillie wrote: »

I'm a part time farmer and don't neglect my farm and put a huge amount of effort in creating/maintaining habitats on it. True though you would probably see it as worthless and your cronies in IFA see it likewise....

That's your own choice and I'm sure that plenty of my cronies maintain habitats, but they'd know that if the land isn't in GAC they shouldn't be claiming on it.
Some farmers don't read the Terms and Condition and some are just chancers
Like The QA and BPS, it's the best paying work on the farm......if you do it right

Buford T. Justice XIX

screamer wrote: »

It’s very simple really, farms that are not viable need to stop farming, and return to natural habitat. If you need subsidies to keep your business going, then it’s time to draw a line under it. Pointless to be spending more on keeping a farm afloat than it earns back, stupid even. That goes for any business.

Yes prices will rise, but then demand will also fall, so intensity wouldn’t be needed.
I do agree intensive farming does irradiate habitat for wild animals, course it does.

As a lecturer once said to us, lazy analysis leads to lazy conclusions.


You do realise that no sector of the Irish economy isn't subsidised, don't you? At least Agricultural subsidies are clear and transparent, unlike for example your own subsidies. Paternity/maternity leave, paternity/maternity pay, sick days, sick pay, holidays, holiday pay, 38 hour week, minimum pay, redundancy pay etc etc etc etc etc etc.


We get paid world market prices for our goods and the 'subsidies' we receive have duties attached to them that have to be reached before that money is paid. You receive a subsidy every day with zero obligation attached and your pay is an order of magnitude greater than what's available to any farmer. World market wages are probably 1/3, at best, of what you currently receive with no benefits or rights attached to that wage.



There are thousands of people across the world who would do your job and could do your job for a fraction of the wages you demand but they are prevented from taking up that job because of the subsidies requiring a permit to be applied for to take up that job, thus subsidising you again, but agricultural goods are traded freely into and out of the EU once certain basic minimum phytosanitary conditions are met. I will enjoy when free movement for workers arrives...



TL;DR? It's a dead and lazy argument to accuse farmers of being highly subsidised when you yourself are attracting a far higher subsidy with no responsibilities due for that.

Birdnuts

gozunda wrote: »

Birdnuts you never appear to have anything positive ever about agriculture here tbh. I see plenty of neighbours doing work for conservation, wildlife and ecology and farming as well. Knocking everyone all the time gets a bit tiresome tbh. I know well what group of extremists use the 'dirty dairy' for their agenda. Their a dirty shower of cnuts themselves.

Far from it - its the efforts of individual farmers that is maintaining what natural heritage is out there. My problem is the system that works against such people via the approach of Teagasc, DAFM and certain farming organisations.

Birdnuts

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

We're miles behind the best out there from an environmental/biodiversity POV. At best we're average.

We have one of the lowest acreage of Organic in the EU - not saying that organic is the be all and end all, put it certainly puts to bed the idea that Ireland is some sort of "green" oasis on such matters

Birdnuts

wrangler wrote: »

When I was in IFA I was always promoting good farming practise, not subsidising lazy farmers to neglect their land, you must be thinking of a different farm organisation.....is there a lazy farmers association.
Glas gives a good balance on well run farms, again it's not compulsory, if you don't like it you can ...off

Insulting farmers who incorporate some habitat into their farm does yourself and other IFA types no good and is a pretty primitive view of where farming needs to go in the future

gozunda

Birdnuts wrote: »

We have one of the lowest acreage of Organic in the EU - not saying that organic is the be all and end all, put it certainly puts to bed the idea that Ireland is some sort of "green" oasis on such matters

I've travelled quite a bit through Europe and nowhere in Ireland can be compared to the vast souless acerages of arable and crops without a decent hedge for hundreds of miles. I remember travelling from Paris to the German border and we counted plenty of grass but hardly one animal grazing. They were all kept in huge indoor sheds without outside access.

The very first thing I see in Ireland coming back is the amazing network of wooded hedgerows, banks and ditches everywhere. Most of these are a haven for wildlife. Even the scabby ones bordering our ever expanding urban areas still host wildlife. The relatively small size of many Irish agricultural holdings means that there is a huge variety of biodiversity in each square mile with little of the massive monoculture found all over most of Europe.

Why some Irish people cannot see this diversity for what it is and instead constantly beat out the same old tune I really dont know.

wrangler

Birdnuts wrote: »

Insulting farmers who incorporate some habitat into their farm does yourself and other IFA types no good and is a pretty primitive view of where farming needs to go in the future

you're fairly naive if you think that all farmers penalised for neglected land had anything to do with wildlife

_Brian

wrangler wrote: »

you're fairly naive if you think that all farmers penalised for neglected land had anything to do with wildlife

But the resultant biodiversity on this land is the same, it cares not the intention of how it was created n

yosemitesam1

gozunda wrote: »

I've travelled quite a bit through Europe and nowhere in Ireland can be compared to the vast souless acerages of arable and crops without a decent hedge for hundreds of miles. I remember travelling from Paris to the German border and we counted plenty of grass but hardly one animal grazing. They were all kept in huge indoor sheds without outside access.

The very first thing I see in Ireland coming back is the amazing network of wooded hedgerows, banks and ditches everywhere. Most of these are a haven for wildlife. Even the scabby ones bordering our ever expanding urban areas still host wildlife. The relatively small size of many Irish agricultural holdings means that there is a huge variety of biodiversity in each square mile with little of the massive monoculture found all over most of Europe.

Why some Irish people cannot see this diversity for what it is and instead constantly beat out the same old tune I really dont know.

We're being told false claims of how sustainable and environmentally friendly Irish agriculture is very regularly. Everywhere has problems but at least we're not getting bombarded by other countries telling us how great they are.

Conservation ag is growing rapidly in Europe as well as loads of wonderful examples of sustainable farming like in the alps.
What's happening here, we tell everyone we're amazing...

gozunda

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

We're being told false claims of how sustainable and environmentally friendly Irish agriculture is very regularly. Everywhere has problems but at least we're not getting bombarded by other countries telling us how great they are.

Conservation ag is growing rapidly in Europe as well as loads of wonderful examples of sustainable farming like in the alps.
What's happening here, we tell everyone we're amazing...

What false claims about sustainability? if we dont look to our own and just keep beating ourselves up we get nowhere tbh. Whatever about some may claim about conservation in Europe - much of farmland there is vast open acerages with not as much as a bush to be seen for miles. Yeah there are marginal areas like the Alps but imo they are the exception imo.

Forget what others might or might be claiming abroad - I dont read their news tbh. I can tell you that what I've seen of European agriculture bears little kinship with diversity or wildlife or conservation compared to what we have here.