Am I missing something here in the future of farming?

_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

https://aquaponics.com/aquaponics-information/ looks like a growth area

_Brian

Deleted User wrote: »

https://aquaponics.com/aquaponics-information/ looks like a growth area

Look at the regen agriculture scene and the recent learnings between soil microbes, fungi and other microscopic entities and the plants in the soil. This is where we want our food grown, where the complex web of life feeds the plants and created properly nutritious foods.
Growing them in water with just NPK will grow a plant, but it won’t be a complete nutritious food.

We don’t need to reinvent the food system, just learn how to understand it and utilise it properly.

_Brian

_Brian wrote: »

Look at the regen agriculture scene and the recent learnings between soil microbes, fungi and other microscopic entities and the plants in the soil. This is where we want our food grown, where the complex web of life feeds the plants and created properly nutritious foods.
Growing them in water with just NPK will grow a plant, but it won’t be a complete nutritious food.

We don’t need to reinvent the food system, just learn how to understand it and utilise it properly.

12 pounds of produce from 1 pound of fish. This loaves and fishes territory. https://youtu.be/QR6ImTQqshI

Also, 0 % environmental impact.

Sounds good to me. Why not look at it as an alternative not as a replacement.

sandman30

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

I"d argue that anyone in nitrates derogation territory, should be getting a lower payment or no payment.

From an environmental point of view not every farm in the country can be highly stocked above 170kgs N. Highly stocked, highly profitable dairy farms should support this too, because the more farms that convert and the more farms that increase stocking rate, the more restrictions there will be.

The worse thing that can happen for the industry is cumpulsory herd reduction like in the Netherlands. This will happen if water quality deteriorates further.

This would then target payments more to lower stocked drystock farmers.