Am I missing something here in the future of farming?

wherearewe45

If my father knew I was making this post I’d be disowned.

Farming seems to be under attack from all sides: farmers aren’t getting enough money for their product and the Greens want to half the herd size. This seems like 2 separate attacks but really is it not 2 issues where both solve each other?

There isn’t enough money being made in farming anymore – does that not justify the need to cut the herd size in Ireland? Less beef/dairy creates more demand leads to higher prices. I know this means squeezing a lot of farmers out but that leads to my next point.

It also can’t be ignored that many farms are lacking in an heir (willing or otherwise). Therefore the number of farmers in the country is falling regardless. Another point, is it not worth considering divestment from beef/dairy/sheep farming, etc. I know this will take action from government to incentivise but if farmers could switch from beef/dairy/sheep to biofuel, they could keep their farms, potentially encourage someone to take over (if biofuels were financially viable) when they are gone and helps give the traditional farmers a fighting chance.

Is this completely unrealistic or is it the only sustainable way forward?

jaymla627

wherearewe45 wrote: »

If my father knew I was making this post I’d be disowned.

Farming seems to be under attack from all sides: farmers aren’t getting enough money for their product and the Greens want to half the herd size. This seems like 2 separate attacks but really is it not 2 issues where both solve each other?

There isn’t enough money being made in farming anymore – does that not justify the need to cut the herd size in Ireland? Less beef/dairy creates more demand leads to higher prices. I know this means squeezing a lot of farmers out but that leads to my next point.

It also can’t be ignored that many farms are lacking in an heir (willing or otherwise). Therefore the number of farmers in the country is falling regardless. Another point, is it not worth considering divestment from beef/dairy/sheep farming, etc. I know this will take action from government to incentivise but if farmers could switch from beef/dairy/sheep to biofuel, they could keep their farms, potentially encourage someone to take over (if biofuels were financially viable) when they are gone and helps give the traditional farmers a fighting chance.

Is this completely unrealistic or is it the only sustainable way forward?

Oil needs to be over 100 dollars a barrel for bio-fuels to be commercially viable, would costs the government billions yearly to sub a large scale bio industry, with the priority been if sf get their hands on the cheque-book to build forever homes for the Margaret cash classes agriculture will be a after thought for government

caff

Farmers own the means of production they need to organise and seize the means of distribution.
The whole competition authority argument that its somehow not on for farmers to sell their own meat is nonsense and should be challenged.

I did find it mad that dispite all the tractor protests and marches on the Dail that the farmers didn't bother trying to get their aims more clearly put front of the election by actually running any candidates......

weatherbyfoxer

alot of farmers will not reduce herd size regardless of prices they are getting..the beam scheme showed this...couldnt get my head around the factory protests at all.."we will give you 30,000+ cattle a week and stuff your larages but we want more money for our cattle!!"..then it got worse for us because of a back log for the Christmas period.At that stage the rest of Europe was getting way more then us..

wherearewe45

wherearewe45 wrote: »

If my father knew I was making this post I’d be disowned.

Farming seems to be under attack from all sides: farmers aren’t getting enough money for their product and the Greens want to half the herd size. This seems like 2 separate attacks but really is it not 2 issues where both solve each other?

There isn’t enough money being made in farming anymore – does that not justify the need to cut the herd size in Ireland? Less beef/dairy creates more demand leads to higher prices. I know this means squeezing a lot of farmers out but that leads to my next point.

It also can’t be ignored that many farms are lacking in an heir (willing or otherwise). Therefore the number of farmers in the country is falling regardless. Another point, is it not worth considering divestment from beef/dairy/sheep farming, etc. I know this will take action from government to incentivise but if farmers could switch from beef/dairy/sheep to biofuel, they could keep their farms, potentially encourage someone to take over (if biofuels were financially viable) when they are gone and helps give the traditional farmers a fighting chance.

Is this completely unrealistic or is it the only sustainable way forward?

This report is interesting "Just 5% of farmers were aged less than 35 years" https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/key-eu-policy-areas/agriculture_en

BarryD2

wherearewe45 wrote: »

Farming seems to be under attack from all sides: farmers aren’t getting enough money for their product and the Greens want to half the herd size. This seems like 2 separate attacks but really is it not 2 issues where both solve each other?

I think you're right but I guess the difficulty with reducing herd sizes is that it's a numbers game. Most beef is going for export so if you reduce supply and increase the value, then you increase your exposure to cheaper international production. i.e. is it better to sell 10,000 widgets at x price or 5,000 same widgets at y price.

I think you're wrong though to solely label the Greens as wanting to reduce herd sizes. This pressure will come from the public at large, if & when carbon taxes are increased and start to bite. People have a sense of equity and if they perceive that one major sector is not 'paying it's way' then there'll be increasing disquiet.

Who knows what the future holds but we seem to be on a steady path towards expanding urban population and likewise decreasing rural communities. All have to eat at the beginning and end of the day but Irish agriculture seems more focused on export markets currently than meeting domestic needs.

K.G.

wherearewe45 wrote: »

If my father knew I was making this post I’d be disowned.

Farming seems to be under attack from all sides: farmers aren’t getting enough money for their product and the Greens want to half the herd size. This seems like 2 separate attacks but really is it not 2 issues where both solve each other?

There isn’t enough money being made in farming anymore – does that not justify the need to cut the herd size in Ireland? Less beef/dairy creates more demand leads to higher prices. I know this means squeezing a lot of farmers out but that leads to my next point.

It also can’t be ignored that many farms are lacking in an heir (willing or otherwise). Therefore the number of farmers in the country is falling regardless. Another point, is it not worth considering divestment from beef/dairy/sheep farming, etc. I know this will take action from government to incentivise but if farmers could switch from beef/dairy/sheep to biofuel, they could keep their farms, potentially encourage someone to take over (if biofuels were financially viable) when they are gone and helps give the traditional farmers a fighting chance.

Is this completely unrealistic or is it the only sustainable way forward?

Farming is the same as it always was individual circumstances might have been different but there are still alot of fellas making serious money even in beef at the minute.

lalababa

Alot of beef is being supplied to the factories at below cost price. Who is supplying ..farmers. Farmers do as they always did. They would feel shamed if they cut numbers or planted. Then you have the idiots who throw money at new tractors and fancy animals as a 'show' for the neighbors. Both these mentalities have to change.
Animal numbers have to decrease, calf's (and good square ones) from dairy have to be 50quid or less and beef prices have to rise.
Masses of land have to be planted or cultivated in some other manner.
Most likely all these things will happen but very slowly as the mentality and tradition is strong.
And all animal and milk production should probably go Organic aswell., coz that's where we should be heading anyway. Still hard to tell a fella under pressure with 50 dairy cows on 50acres to stop spreading 18-6-12. until he can get the same price for half the milk.
Actually any organic dairy farmers around boards...? How is grass growth yeild going with organic methods??🙂

Panch18

If everybody goes organic how will we all get double the price for our products?

weatherbyfoxer

Panch18 wrote: »

If everybody goes organic how will we all get double the price for our products?

wont happen because the lower stocking rates required

lalababa

Re organic . There's a few ways to go. Prices keep dropping leading to industrialization of agriculture in Ireland, like other countries, with high input of fertilizer and feed. Big feedlots etc like USA. Heading towards battery chicken territory. Unsustainability & pollution.
With sustainable organic being the opposite... OR something in-between.
Again re organic....what are yield levels like compared to conventional taking into account savings from less inputs? Re prices..well they'll have to come up either way conventional or organic , otherwise plant away🀔

Mooooo

Whether we like it or not we are competing in a world market, so supply changes elsewhere would have to happen to effect the Irish price. I cut my herd back I won't make enough to pay myself a wage and pay loans, simple as that.

Panch18

Mooooo wrote: »

Whether we like it or not we are competing in a world market, so supply changes elsewhere would have to happen to effect the Irish price. I cut my herd back I won't make enough to pay myself a wage and pay loans, simple as that.

This is the problem

If every farmer went organic in Ireland, then the price we would get for produce would fall - and fall dramatically. As farmers we'd end up with half the production but the same price as conventional - that happens already in beef when there is an oversupply in the organic side

Not that i am against organic or anything like that - just on a nationwide scale i don't see it working

whelan2

Was a thread on another forum I'm on the other day. The attitude is that farmers are to blame for climate change, only spread slurry when it's going to rain. Spread into rivers and close to houses etc. This is the type of stuff we are facing in the future. I posted on it and set a few people straight. Would make your blood boil

Say my name

wherearewe45 wrote: »

If my father knew I was making this post I’d be disowned.

Farming seems to be under attack from all sides: farmers aren’t getting enough money for their product and the Greens want to half the herd size. This seems like 2 separate attacks but really is it not 2 issues where both solve each other?

There isn’t enough money being made in farming anymore – does that not justify the need to cut the herd size in Ireland? Less beef/dairy creates more demand leads to higher prices. I know this means squeezing a lot of farmers out but that leads to my next point.

It also can’t be ignored that many farms are lacking in an heir (willing or otherwise). Therefore the number of farmers in the country is falling regardless. Another point, is it not worth considering divestment from beef/dairy/sheep farming, etc. I know this will take action from government to incentivise but if farmers could switch from beef/dairy/sheep to biofuel, they could keep their farms, potentially encourage someone to take over (if biofuels were financially viable) when they are gone and helps give the traditional farmers a fighting chance.

Is this completely unrealistic or is it the only sustainable way forward?

Since day one farmers have always been complaining of money from farming.
Difference this time is the opposition parties have rowed in behind this either in using it as a stick against farmers in calling for a herd reduction or/and using it as a vehicle to get elected. Just go back to the tractor protests to see the political influences on those.

If there's a reduction in stock numbers. The factories won't increase the price in Ireland. They themselves are too multinational themselves to do that on a local scale.

Back on the income there's farmers living well on farming still or else you wouldn't have the building boom at present. Same with land leasing or land sales. There's no cut back in that either. The trouble is if there is trouble is the disparity in the cheque in the post from Brussels with some getting 300k and some none.

If it's from an environmental point of view that herd numbers are looking to be cut so that the dot com workers of the green party can continue with life as normal, to reach some ill thought out national target then go down the methane and nitrate diet changing route in ruminants instead of the cutting numbers. Which in all honesty will impact the smaller farmer most and put them out of business before it even impacts the larger farmer.
And then through policy all it'll be facilitating is enabling the larger farmer buy out the smaller farmer's land instead of what these grandiose ideas were to protect the small farmer while protecting the environment.

If authority wishes to get real on seeing farming as a solution to climate change then work WITH farmers. Not AGAINST farmers.
By this I mean reward farmers for their work on climate mitigation. By this I mean incentivise the inclusion of methane and nitrate reducers, reward for more carbon storage in the soils and if you're modus operandi is just to complain about slurry spreading at wrong times in your eyes. Maybe just maybe enquire if that farmer has adequate slurry storage to carry them to a more favourable time of spreading and if not why not and how that can be improved upon.

On the bio economy. I'm informed there's a good book by Albert Bates and Kathleen Draper called "Burn" and it goes through the solutions that plant grown material can be used in our modern world from bioplastics to liquid fuel and gas fuel to use in concrete to use in community and industrial heating systems. All the while, while sequestering carbon from our atmosphere.

But always the aim should be to protect the small family farm. And not just use it for leverage to get what you want while ultimately destroying it.

dh1985

whelan2 wrote: »

Was a thread on another forum I'm on the other day. The attitude is that farmers are to blame for climate change, only spread slurry when it's going to rain. Spread into rivers and close to houses etc. This is the type of stuff we are facing in the future. I posted on it and set a few people straight. Would make your blood boil

I agree with what your saying but there is a minority of farmers who dont help change these perceptions. I pass the teagasc farm in athenry most days and see tracks in the fields where they were out with fertiliser the past few days. Alongside these tracks are pools of water from the substantial volume of rain of the past couple of days. It's hardly the best advertisement for sensible use of chemical fertiliser, right along one of the busiest roads in the country.
Nothing against early fertiliser but the recent storm was earmarked to batter the country from early last week and those are the actions of farm that we should be learning from.
Same last autumn post the fertiliser deadline. And in case anyone forgets it was a ****e autumn. Doesn't paint a picture of responsibility

wherearewe45

Mooooo wrote: »

Whether we like it or not we are competing in a world market, so supply changes elsewhere would have to happen to effect the Irish price. I cut my herd back I won't make enough to pay myself a wage and pay loans, simple as that.

So what is your future? Stick with the status quo or move in a new direction?

grassroot1

Government policy has to change if we have learned one thing from the election is that the environment is not a priority with the electorate.
Lots of green-washing no positive actions/measures; only farmers can fix the biodiversity loss and if farmers are expected to fix it we need to be paid.
No party ever criticizes the data centers or airlines/transport.

Capercaillie

grassroot1 wrote: »

Government policy has to change if we have learned one thing from the election is that the environment is not a priority with the electorate.
Lots of green-washing no positive actions/measures; only farmers can fix the biodiversity loss and if farmers are expected to fix it we need to be paid.
No party ever criticizes the data centers or airlines/transport.

Money is there to pay farmers to fix biodiversity loss. 250 million euros mostly wasted in GLAS and more money spent in ineffectual greening payments. Instead of action based schemes like GLAS/REPS which have not halted biodiversity loss, we need to reward farmers with results based schemes. The farmer who produces quality habitats will get the money, while farmers with poor habitats/poor water quality will get nothing.

Mooooo

wherearewe45 wrote: »

So what is your future? Stick with the status quo or move in a new direction?

Tbh costs are rising both fixed and variable, and in order to counter that and stop what return I can get from getting too small, it's expanding I will be if I can do so. I have scope in that young stock are still on the farm so moving those off and replacing with cow's would be a start. One issue is investment required to make things more efficient and upgrade the yards, if numbers are forced down and and are after borrowing another 2 or 300k what do you do then.
Paying for biodiversity is fine and all that but it'll never be a living wage they'll pay, so the farm still has to have the output to pay for everything, drawings, loans, maintenance and basic fecking costs of production

solerina

Capercaillie wrote: »

Money is there to pay farmers to fix biodiversity loss. 250 million euros mostly wasted in GLAS and more money spent in ineffectual greening payments. Instead of action based schemes like GLAS/REPS which have not halted biodiversity loss, we need to reward farmers with results based schemes. The farmer who produces quality habitats will get the money, while farmers with poor habitats/poor water quality will get nothing.

Money is there if it is correctly used...the amount of pensioners around me who have 30-40 sheep...(who are not well looked after and produce only a very small crop of lambs) .. but who are still getting huge payments is unbelievable !!

ruwithme

grassroot1 wrote: »

Government policy has to change if we have learned one thing from the election is that the environment is not a priority with the electorate.
Lots of green-washing no positive actions/measures; only farmers can fix the biodiversity loss and if farmers are expected to fix it we need to be paid.
No party ever criticizes the data centers or airlines/transport.

Maybe environment isn't that high on electorates agenda, but it has being and will continue to be with the policy makers in Europe who by and large make the rules for us farmer's.

Personally I'm of the opinion that too many of us on disadvantaged land to say the least try to hard to make a living with stock numbers that don't suit our available land.

we need to embrace more the idea of cutting back at least a little and retain more of the cheque in the post on disadvantaged land.

_Brian

solerina wrote: »

Money is there if it is correctly used...the amount of pensioners around me who have 30-40 sheep...(who are not well looked after and produce only a very small crop of lambs) .. but who are still getting huge payments is unbelievable !!

I’d expect 100% of direct payments will soon enough go to results based biodiversity schemes. Can’t say I’m sorry either. The IFA have continually faught any sort of fairness being brought into the system over the years.

It’s something from the greens ag policy I’d agree with. That will be perfect work for smaller extensive farms. Let the lads who say they are “viable” work away at intensive stuff without massive payments and see how they feel about their viability in 5 years.

Mooooo

_Brian wrote: »

I’d expect 100% of direct payments will soon enough go to results based biodiversity schemes. Can’t say I’m sorry either. The IFA have continually faught any sort of fairness being brought into the system over the years.

It’s something from the greens ag policy I’d agree with. That will be perfect work for smaller extensive farms. Let the lads who say they are “viable” work away at intensive stuff without massive payments and see how they feel about their viability in 5 years.

A lot of dairy farms don't have massive payments, some lads converting may may not of they had them from the beef or tillage enterprise or depending on whether the historical situation was so not sure what you're hinting at when you say " viable"? Putting it simply if I have to cut back so that the farm doesn't give a return that'll pay the bills and everthing else, that's it I'm out. I'm not saying that part time and full time should be treated any differently but of it effects the sustainability of a farm in terms of returning fulltime employment to owner or staff then that is also an issue.
Myself and the neighbour have chatted at the odd day and he was was saying if both of us are cut back the lad employed between us is gone straight away, and that we would survive. I'd disagree as I have another 30 years in front of me, staying stagnant isn't an option not a mind cutting back as we will not receive any more for our product and costs will rise.
The hypocrites in The EU or greens or whatever making the farms within their remit unviable while buying anything be it grain beef milk or oil from wherever it can get it's hands on it at nowhere near the same standards, checks or controls

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

I’d expect 100% of direct payments will soon enough go to results based biodiversity schemes. Can’t say I’m sorry either. The IFA have continually faught any sort of fairness being brought into the system over the years.

It’s something from the greens ag policy I’d agree with. That will be perfect work for smaller extensive farms. Let the lads who say they are “viable” work away at intensive stuff without massive payments and see how they feel about their viability in 5 years.

If you believe fairness consists of taking money off other farmers when every farm had the same opportunity to maximise their payments...... then i have little sympathy

Buford T. Justice XIX

wrangler wrote: »

If you believe fairness consists of taking money off other farmers when every farm had the same opportunity to maximise their payments...... then i have little sympathy

Do you think the same payments based on what was done over 20 years ago should be held forever?

Times change and what a farm did 20 or 30 years ago shouldn't be the basis of whether a farm should survive into the future or not.

jaymla627

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Do you think the same payments based on what was done over 20 years ago should be held forever?

Times change and what a farm did 20 or 30 years ago shouldn't be the basis of whether a farm should survive into the future or not.

Its like a dail seat, it should be a legacy payment with the lucky fews offspring reaping the benefits of their fathers/grandfathers work....
Gravytrain will be over once the transition period is over, the widespread fraud that's been happening EU wide which includes criminal gangs receiving sfp will have to be stopped dead it's a ludacris system

wrangler

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Do you think the same payments based on what was done over 20 years ago should be held forever?

Times change and what a farm did 20 or 30 years ago shouldn't be the basis of whether a farm should survive into the future or not.

Subsidies were well distributed twenty years ago targetting low income sectors now ye want it distributed even to a sector (dairy) that is experiencing a boom that'll be spending it on the holidays.
Taking it off beef farmers to pay for skiing in the dry period doesn't make much sense either.
High entitlements doesn't mean high payments,
As i keep saying here milk quota was acceptable for thirty years

_Brian

wrangler wrote: »

If you believe fairness consists of taking money off other farmers when every farm had the same opportunity to maximise their payments...... then i have little sympathy

It’s not taking money of other farms.

It’s redirecting future money on a different way.

It’s not a farmers money until it’s received. If a New system is implemented then that’s that.

People talk of a sense of entitlement among the can’t work won’t work brigade demanding someone else’s taxes is given to them, yet you are saying this is “other farmers money”, it’s not, it’s EU funding that cam at the stroke of a pen be redirected to more appropriate avenues.

Plenty of workers loose their jobs because eu funding for a project stops and is redirected. This is no different.

wrangler

jaymla627 wrote: »

Its like a dail seat, it should be a legacy payment with the lucky fews offspring reaping the benefits of their fathers/grandfathers work....
Gravytrain will be over once the transition period is over, the widespread fraud that's been happening EU wide which includes criminal gangs receiving sfp will have to be stopped dead it's a ludacris system

A lot of drystock farms are basically doing what they were doing 20 years ago.
It's no gravy train, it's compensating for poor price
No matter what scheme is brought in, the ink won't be dry on the paper before it's being abused.

Water John

There are a number of biodiversity projects around the country eg Bride, showing the way to go.

_Brian

wrangler wrote: »

A lot of drystock farms are basically doing what they were doing 20 years ago.
It's no gravy train, it's compensating for poor price
No matter what scheme is brought in, the ink won't be dry on the paper before it's being abused.

It’s not compensation for poor price because it’s not linked to stock

If a payment was built around 200hd cattle are the time.
Same far found be farming 20 cattle now yet your saying they are getting compensation for the poor price on 200hd

That’s a useless argument.

Panch18

Not sure what the drama is

For starters there is now a maximum cap on entitlement value per hectare - so this is reducing the super high value entitlements that some, not many, have.

With convergence we are heading to a situation where we will all be getting a similar amount per hectare anyway. This is well underway, since 2015 the cuts that I, and many others, have received have been savage - I am sure there are plenty on here who have seen the value of their entitlements fall while plenty others will have seen there's increase.

so it's all heading towards the same amount anyway - an amount that won't do anything for anybody by the way, only drive more people to part time farming

Say my name

Water John wrote: »

There are a number of biodiversity projects around the country eg Bride, showing the way to go.

And shock horror that was started by a dairy farmer.. So according to wrangler they shouldn't be rewarded for doing so.

People need to get their heads around the changes that's after occurring in the EU. It used to be about supporting food production as the EU came out from a shortage after the war. Now the narrative has changed and it's supporting carbon capture and biodiversity and small family farms.
This all came about from the realisation that farming in the EU is quickly going the U.S. route of thousands of acres owned by corporations and hundreds of acres in fields and up to the thousand of animals on farms.

I see a headline on the journal the EU is going to pay for carbon capture. So it's gone beyond stock numbers.
I just hope extra measures will be there for smaller farms to keep local economies going and it's not about purely how many acres are there for carbon capture.

Panch18

Say my name wrote: »

And shock horror that was started by a dairy farmer.. So according to wrangler they shouldn't be rewarded for doing so.

People need to get their heads around the changes that's after occurring in the EU. It used to be about supporting food production as the EU came out from a shortage after the war. Now the narrative has changed and it's supporting carbon capture and biodiversity and small family farms.
This all came about from the realisation that farming in the EU is quickly going the U.S. route of thousands of acres owned by corporations and hundreds of acres in fields and up to the thousand of animals on farms.

I see a headline on the journal the EU is going to pay for carbon capture. So it's gone beyond stock numbers.
I just hope extra measures will be there for smaller farms to keep local economies going and it's not about purely how many acres are there for carbon capture.

You know the government could easily change farmers focus on biodiversity etc by the flick of a pen.

If farmers were encouraged to do things like the Bride project then they would do them. And the easiest way to encourage them would be to NOT cut their BPS for every little thing that isn't in grass or corn. In fact for small areas where farmers create ponds, natural woodland or anything similar maybe they should get paid double their BPS value on that area. so if your BPS value is 250 hectare then if a farmer creates a hectare pond he should get 500 for that hectare

This would a cheap and simple way to encourage farmers to get a bit more diverse. And it wouldn't cost much as all. I would probably limit it to something like 1 hectare in 50 or whatever

Reward rather than penalise

Buford T. Justice XIX

wrangler wrote: »

Subsidies were well distributed twenty years ago targetting low income sectors now ye want it distributed even to a sector (dairy) that is experiencing a boom that'll be spending it on the holidays.
Taking it off beef farmers to pay for skiing in the dry period doesn't make much sense either.
High entitlements doesn't mean high payments,
As i keep saying here milk quota was acceptable for thirty years

The BPS will be distributed according to area, hopefully with some type of front loading for smaller farmers, everyone will receive the same regardless of what they, their fathers or grandfathers did 20 years ago. Smaller farmers and those on marginal land can seek admittance to various environmental schemes that they qualify for or wish to join which more intensive farms won't be able to apply or qualify for.

Why should the BPS be stuck in 2000, why not 1995? or 2005? Indeed, why not 2019? Just because it suits a large minority doesn't mean it should be retained forever.

And saying it will be spent on holidays for dairy farmers is a cheap shot, wrangler. Do beef men not go on holidays? Or sheep men?

The current system is indefensible and many in the IFA will say the same. It'll make little difference to me, I'm just about on the average payment due to building up the farm during the reference years. Many more were in similar positions and many that were fully developed then have downsized but still retain the same payments.

Many developed after the reference years with low payments and they should be kept unequal because it suited a lucky minority? Where's the fairness in that?

Water John

EU will be rewarding carbon sequestration and biodiversity;
https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/we-need-to-reward-farmers-to-lower-emissions-senior-eu-official/

Biodiverity policy to be released in about a month. The signposts for everybody are becoming clear.

tabby aspreme

I think one of the big changes coming to farming will be around the use of slurry, fields around here, which 10 days ago were covered with slurry are now completely washed clean, and the ground hasn't absorbed it all, I don't know what the solution is long term, but I can see further restrictions on slurry use, maybe digesters set up locally with the solids then spread on the land.

Mooooo

tabby aspreme wrote: »

I think one of the big changes coming to farming will be around the use of slurry, fields around here, which 10 days ago were covered with slurry are now completely washed clean, and the ground hasn't absorbed it all, I don't know what the solution is long term, but I can see further restrictions on slurry use, maybe digesters set up locally with the solids then spread on the land.

Afaik it's liquid you're left with after those yokes. But that issue is a question of enforecment

_Brian

tabby aspreme wrote: »

I think one of the big changes coming to farming will be around the use of slurry, fields around here, which 10 days ago were covered with slurry are now completely washed clean, and the ground hasn't absorbed it all, I don't know what the solution is long term, but I can see further restrictions on slurry use, maybe digesters set up locally with the solids then spread on the land.

Imagine the expense and emissions involved in drawing the slurry one way and the solids back. I can’t ever see that system being a runner.

Water John

With AD the digestate liquid can be spread on grazing grassland. AD plant would only be viable with cows indoors, year round slurry supply. Another option used in NI is separate the solids from the liquid in slurry.
Or back to straw bedding?

Panch18

Isn't it ironic that places like Germany and UK are building lots of digestors as a Green Energy solution

and what is a digestor only a large scale concrete cows stomach - yet the humble cow is being lambasted from pillar to post as you all know

I just think that is the height of irony

blackbox

Panch18 wrote: »

Isn't it ironic that places like Germany and UK are building lots of digestors as a Green Energy solution

and what is a digestor only a large scale concrete cows stomach - yet the humble cow is being lambasted from pillar to post as you all know

I just think that is the height of irony

Not quite the same. With anaerobic digesters the methane is captured for fuel. This doesn't happen with cows (yet).

yosemitesam1

Panch18 wrote: »

Isn't it ironic that places like Germany and UK are building lots of digestors as a Green Energy solution

and what is a digestor only a large scale concrete cows stomach - yet the humble cow is being lambasted from pillar to post as you all know

I just think that is the height of irony

Truly green energy seems to be a myth. There was a recent article on Bloomberg. All wind turbine propellers end up in landfill after 10 or 20 years

Capercaillie

Panch18 wrote: »

You know the government could easily change farmers focus on biodiversity etc by the flick of a pen.

If farmers were encouraged to do things like the Bride project then they would do them. And the easiest way to encourage them would be to NOT cut their BPS for every little thing that isn't in grass or corn. In fact for small areas where farmers create ponds, natural woodland or anything similar maybe they should get paid double their BPS value on that area. so if your BPS value is 250 hectare then if a farmer creates a hectare pond he should get 500 for that hectare

This would a cheap and simple way to encourage farmers to get a bit more diverse. And it wouldn't cost much as all. I would probably limit it to something like 1 hectare in 50 or whatever

Reward rather than penalise

It shows how much of a joke GLAS scheme is when there isn't even a measure for pond construction. A pond is the one of the best things you can do for biodiversity on your farm. It doesn't even have to be a large pond.

tabby aspreme

blackbox wrote: »

Not quite the same. With anaerobic digesters the methane is captured for fuel. This doesn't happen with cows (yet).

Pig farm near me has an anaerobic digester producing methane which is used to generate electricity, as regards a year round supply of slurry there is enough on farm slurry storage for that.

Water John

It would be a small AD plant to run 52 weeks on a supply of 16 weeks.

tabby aspreme

Water John wrote: »

It would be a small AD plant to run 52 weeks on a supply of 16 weeks.

It could be used by more than farm

Panch18

Wouldn't Silage, Maize, various crops such as wheat, rye, beet etc be the main feedstock for AD plants? certainly ones that don't take in commercial waste anyway

Water John

Yes, but then you're having nitrogen/urea from fossil fuel, being used to directly to grow the crops. Sort of greenwashing the fossil fuel.

Panch18

Water John wrote: »

Yes, but then you're having nitrogen/urea from fossil fuel, being used to directly to grow the crops. Sort of greenwashing the fossil fuel.

My understanding is that the digestate left over after going through AD provides the vast majority of the fertiliser that is needed to grow the next years crop. So once you get the first year or 2 done then your fertiliser inputs are low.
Could be wrong now