Green Party activists told don’t use 'big words' when talking to rural voters

NcdJd

gozunda wrote: »

I think this kinda thing may be more suited to our 'greens' tbf. The irony is palpable ...


https://news.sky.com/story/amp/truck-load-of-carrots-dumped-outside-london-university-12086398

This is the type of thing should be highlighted. Same as spuds.. supermarkets rejecting spuds cause they have a bit of scab on them which has nothing to do with the actual eatable quality of the potato. This means spud growers have to spend money and waste water irrigating potatos to cut down on scab because consumers expect they perfect potato. Totally unnecessary and not only is it reducing water from natural water sources but also soil erosion. All because the consumer wants a photogenic spud yet they blame farmers for destroying the local environment 🀔

NcdJd

endainoz wrote: »

Great points there, people tend to forget that factory vegetable farming can be just as bad as factory meat farming.

I think reducing inputs is the way to go for farming, don't see greens coming up with any ideas here. They really haven't done themselves any favours here.

Hi endainoz, it's worse. This is why I cannot comprehend the spin put out there that a plant based diet is better for the environment than meat based protein. It's total bull**** and anyone who spouts that argument has never been in a field as it's been prepared for vegetable production. Either they will say "**** what da fck" or will run out of it pretending they didn't see what they just saw.

NcdJd

One more example and I'll call it a night.

2 x 6 metre mashio pantera rotovators at 1000 rpm running through a twenty acre field for more than a day so the soil is fine enough and then once seed is precision sowed completely covered in crop protection mesh for 5 months.

The next field beside it has a herd of cattle in a field that has old meadow grass, good hedgerows and is never fertilised.

Which is less destructive for the environment and which has more biodiversity?

Consumer thinks they are doing great things having their roasted meatless veg dish..

The Rabbi

NcdJd wrote: »

One more example and I'll call it a night.

2 x 6 metre mashio pantera rotovators at 1000 rpm running through a twenty acre field for more than a day so the soil is fine enough and then once seed is precision sowed completely covered in crop protection mesh for 5 months.

The next field beside it has a herd of cattle in a field that has old meadow grass, good hedgerows and is never fertilised.

Which is less destructive for the environment and which has more biodiversity?

Consumer thinks they are doing great things having their roasted meatless veg dish..

I would like to find out how much land is required to feed a person on a plant based diet compared to a person on meat,spuds and a scoop of turnip diet.
Also,would any of ye hire a vegetarian to haul silage.They would be grazing all day at the beans an berrys,whereas other lads could horse down a few hang sangies an a mug of tae in minutes.

emaherx

The Rabbi wrote: »

I would like to find out how much land is required to feed a person on a plant based diet compared to a person on meat,spuds and a scoop of turnip diet.
Also,would any of ye hire a vegetarian to haul silage.They would be grazing all day at the beans an berrys,whereas other lads could horse down a few hang sangies an a mug of tae in minutes.

The issue with that is it's not a level playing field, cows can graze a natural grass sward, a complete and biodiverse eco-system but a tillage field rips out most of the existing eco-system and replaces it with a monoculture.

Of course some of the more intensive cattle systems with constant reseeding or overgrazing can be just as bad.

Areas of Europe where cattle farming was abandoned saw a decline in species of butterfly and other grassland insects, there is a project to re-wild cattle in some of these areas.

Obviously I'm not anti tillage farming as we all need veg but it makes me laugh when a vegan believes my extensive low input beef farm is more destructive to biodiversity than a plough and a crop that has been sprayed with pesticides and herbicide with the explicit intention of preventing any biodiversity invading the crop.

Limestone Cowboy

emaherx wrote: »

The issue with that is it's not a level playing field, cows can graze a natural grass sward, a complete and biodiverse eco-system but a tillage field rips out most of the existing eco-system and replaces it with a monoculture.

Of course some of the more intensive cattle systems with constant reseeding or overgrazing can be just as bad.

Areas of Europe where cattle farming was abandoned saw a decline in species of butterfly and other grassland insects, there is a project to re-wild cattle in some of these areas.

Obviously I'm not anti tillage farming as we all need veg but it makes me laugh when a vegan believes my extensive low input beef farm is more destructive to biodiversity than a plough and a crop that has been sprayed with pesticides and herbicide with the explicit intention of preventing any biodiversity invading the crop.

There is a very good documentary on Netflix about it called Kiss the ground. Thought it was going to be a heap of vegan propaganda but was almost the opposite in fact.

The Rabbi

The Rabbi wrote: »

I would like to find out how much land is required to feed a person on a plant based diet compared to a person on meat,spuds and a scoop of turnip diet.

Thing is, ruminants can graze land that isn't suitable for cropping so to generate those figures would be meaningless.

emaherx

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Thing is, ruminants can graze land that isn't suitable for cropping so to generate those figures would be meaningless.

Also how much land dose a cow need anywhere in Ireland compared to Texas, guess which figures would be used in such a study.

emaherx

Limestone Cowboy wrote: »

There is a very good documentary on Netflix about it called Kiss the ground. Thought it was going to be a heap of vegan propaganda but was almost the opposite in fact.

Must give that a look, I've run out of things to watch.

ChuckieEgg

I think that lady has more or less finished her political career by implying rural voters are simpletons

endainoz

emaherx wrote: »

Must give that a look, I've run out of things to watch.

It's absolutely fantastic, mainly because it doesn't demonize cows and meat production in general.

The message from it is fairly straightforward, take care of the soil. Microbes in the soil are killed by spraying and tilling. The more microbes in the soil, the less inputs are needed and the more carbon it can sequester.

It would be worth having carbon emissions calculated on all farms in Ireland and I would wager that the majority of them would sequester more carbon than they produce.

The reduction of the beef herd does not help this of course, and you won't hear the greens going on about it.

There are carbon calculators out there to use, I'm hoping to work one out myself this year.

emaherx

Just watched the trailer and had a look at their website. I will definitly be givinig it a proper look later when I've time.

Tonynewholland

endainoz wrote: »

Great points there, people tend to forget that factory vegetable farming can be just as bad as factory meat farming.

I think reducing inputs is the way to go for farming, don't see greens coming up with any ideas here. They really haven't done themselves any favours here.

Reducing inputs is the road to hobby farming. Which is what the greens are hoping for.

NcdJd

Tonynewholland wrote: »

Reducing inputs is the road to hobby farming. Which is what the greens are hoping for.

They want inputs reduced which will lead to lower volumes of agriculture production and expect the farmer to take the ever decreasing price for their stock and produce. This will just lead to more consolidation as farmers try to get bigger to scrap out a living.

Hobby farms years ago were small farmers and market gardeners. All could cloth and feed both themselves and their children and make a living.

Like everything when there is a race to the bottom on price something has to be sacrificed. In agriculture it is the environment. Same as when you go to aldi or lidl for a chainsaw. Pay 60 euros while the local business up the road is selling one for 400. When the aldi or lidl chainsaw gives out you fck it out. Whereas the one you pay 400 for you bring to the local business to get fixed. Throwaway society we live in and people complain how the environment is so fcked up.

boardise

NcdJd wrote: »

Choking on my Shakespeare reading that... how the fck do these loolas get elected..

What were you reading ...The Merchant Of Ennis ?

NcdJd

boardise wrote: »

What were you reading ...The Merchant Of Ennis ?

I have no idea where that came from. I would be more inclined to listen to What's Words Worth? by Lemmy RIP.

boardise

NcdJd wrote: »

I have no idea where that came from. I would be more inclined to listen to What's Words Worth? by Lemmy RIP.

Whatever you're reading -you came out with some thumping great posts which opened my city slicker's eyes to some realities.
I try to be a sensible consumer and do my bit for recycling and supporting local business . I can see some merit in the broad arguments made by environmentalists but I am also aware of the realities 'on the ground' which you illustrated with such clarity. The economics and logistics of our situation are crazy. e.g.consumers should not be able to buy a litre of milk for 75c.
I hope that both 'sides' in this debate can reach some accommodation . It should be possible to have full and frank discussion of all the practicalities involved in a spirit of good will. It won't be helpful if we see the two camps talking past each other in a mood of suspicion.
The Government and the relevant national agencies really need to get to grips with these urgent matters.

endainoz

Tonynewholland wrote: »

Reducing inputs is the road to hobby farming. Which is what the greens are hoping for.

No it isn't at all, it's saving money on less inputs to produce the same output. Can't see how that leads to hobby farming. But I'd agree it is probably what the greens want....

blue5000

boardise wrote: »

Whatever you're reading -you came out with some thumping great posts which opened my city slicker's eyes to some realities.
I try to be a sensible consumer and do my bit for recycling and supporting local business . I can see some merit in the broad arguments made by environmentalists but I am also aware of the realities 'on the ground' which you illustrated with such clarity. The economics and logistics of our situation are crazy. e.g.consumers should not be able to buy a litre of milk for 75c.
I hope that both 'sides' in this debate can reach some accommodation . It should be possible to have full and frank discussion of all the practicalities involved in a spirit of good will. It won't be helpful if we see the two camps talking past each other in a mood of suspicion.
The Government and the relevant national agencies really need to get to grips with these urgent matters.

If you buy 3L for €2 in DS it's working out at approx 66c per L. Good to hear from city ppl on here BTW, we're all in this together.

Birdnuts

Tonynewholland wrote: »

Reducing inputs is the road to hobby farming. Which is what the greens are hoping for.

Not really - reducing off farm "inputs" like Chem fert, pesticides etc. makes farming more economic and environmentally sustaineable over time by improving soil health etc. - the "high input" model beloved of Teagasc et al has simply led to a race to the bottom, massive overproduction/food waste and ever smaller margins for primary producers.

Siamsa Sessions

blue5000 wrote: »

If you buy 3L for €2 in DS it's working out at approx 66c per L. Good to hear from city ppl on here BTW, we're all in this together.

Saw on Twitter last week that Tesco was charging more for bottled water than milk.

I know it's consumers who ultimately make the choice but supermarkets have effectively made it impossible for them to do anything other than buy (and demand) cheap, cheap, cheap food. And then flog them god knows what else once the "happy hour food" has got them inside the supermarket door

I'd second the welcome to any non-farmers on here. We're all citizens of this planet first, farmers second.

Tonynewholland

Birdnuts wrote: »

Not really - reducing off farm "inputs" like Chem fert, pesticides etc. makes farming more economic and environmentally sustaineable over time by improving soil health etc. - the "high input" model beloved of Teagasc et al has simply led to a race to the bottom, massive overproduction/food waste and ever smaller margins for primary producers.

I’m a dairy farmer and have no problem if we must stop using some certain chemical sprays but what’s the answer for problem weeds like ragwort taking over the countryside. Especially on less productive farms and roadsides
Food waste isn’t down to farmers it’s more the throw away culture that’s everywhere now.
The greens idea for farmers to grow seeds which I’m sure is for humans not animals is just off the wall. They will expect to be grown free of chemicals so the foolish farmers will be on their knees weeding because they love to farm.
Do they realise the amount of arable land in the world will never feed the world and a lot of non animal food is produced with fertiliser from animals who live on marginal land which is only capable of growing grass plants

endainoz

Tonynewholland wrote: »

I’m a dairy farmer and have no problem if we must stop using some certain chemical sprays but what’s the answer for problem weeds like ragwort taking over the countryside. Especially on less productive farms and roadsides
Food waste isn’t down to farmers it’s more the throw away culture that’s everywhere now.
The greens idea for farmers to grow seeds which I’m sure is for humans not animals is just off the wall. They will expect to be grown free of chemicals so the foolish farmers will be on their knees weeding because they love to farm.
Do they realise the amount of arable land in the world will never feed the world and a lot of non animal food is produced with fertiliser from animals who live on marginal land which is only capable of growing grass plants

Spraying ragwort isn't a good option imo because it causes too much damage to the soil. I prefer to pull them myself but to each their own and all that.

There are alternatives out there, and it's not just herbicides, chemical fert is to blame aswell. The constant spreading of ever more nitrogen in the ground is simply not sustainable. Are you ok with the idea that approximately half the nitrogen you spread will not go into the ground but into the atmosphere as nitrous oxide. Literally half your fertilizer bill is going into the sky! So essentially your paying double for what actually goes into the soil.

I'm more for the approach of using animals in conjunction with the land, not removing them entirely.

The argument about marginal land not being able to grow crops isn't entirely true. Sure it would be hard to grow things on the side of a mountain but a no till system is an easy alternative for that. No dig market gardens are becoming popular these days and using animals dung in conjunction with it to create topsoil is a no brainier.

Waffletraktor

endainoz wrote: »

Spraying ragwort isn't a good option imo because it causes too much damage to the soil. I prefer to pull them myself but to each their own and all that.

There are alternatives out there, and it's not just herbicides, chemical fert is to blame aswell. The constant spreading of ever more nitrogen in the ground is simply not sustainable. Are you ok with the idea that approximately half the nitrogen you spread will not go into the ground but into the atmosphere as nitrous oxide. Literally half your fertilizer bill is going into the sky! So essentially your paying double for what actually goes into the soil.

I'm more for the approach of using animals in conjunction with the land, not removing them entirely.

The argument about marginal land not being able to grow crops isn't entirely true. Sure it would be hard to grow things on the side of a mountain but a no till system is an easy alternative for that. No dig market gardens are becoming popular these days and using animals dung in conjunction with it to create topsoil is a no brainier.

No til doesnt work in heavy(clay) or wet soils.

endainoz

Waffletraktor wrote: »

No til doesnt work in heavy(clay) or wet soils.

It does with easily available outputs, rotten silage mixed with dung would work unless the field floods every winter in which case would make things difficult.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Waffletraktor wrote: »

No til doesnt work in heavy(clay) or wet soils.

They'll figure that out after a few hungry years.

Tonynewholland

endainoz wrote: »

Spraying ragwort isn't a good option imo because it causes too much damage to the soil. I prefer to pull them myself but to each their own and all that.

There are alternatives out there, and it's not just herbicides, chemical fert is to blame aswell. The constant spreading of ever more nitrogen in the ground is simply not sustainable. Are you ok with the idea that approximately half the nitrogen you spread will not go into the ground but into the atmosphere as nitrous oxide. Literally half your fertilizer bill is going into the sky! So essentially your paying double for what actually goes into the soil.

I'm more for the approach of using animals in conjunction with the land, not removing them entirely.

The argument about marginal land not being able to grow crops isn't entirely true. Sure it would be hard to grow things on the side of a mountain but a no till system is an easy alternative for that. No dig market gardens are becoming popular these days and using animals dung in conjunction with it to create topsoil is a no brainier.

I’m all for less sprays and even pull ragwort myself but thinking it’s all going to be pulled by hand around the countryside is the stuff of dreams
I was in reps once and went to farms using little or no fertiliser and I wasn’t impressed. From what I saw it’s just swapping fert for feed to put condition on animals but I’m always looking for ways to make/save more money.
Something like 75% or the worlds farm land isn’t suitable for crops

Waffletraktor

endainoz wrote: »

It does with easily available outputs, rotten silage mixed with dung would work unless the field floods every winter in which case would make things difficult.

Like which machine?
Clay can get so hard it wont let the drill in the ground, get so wet it won't close slots and smears side walls. Takes compaction in wet harvest weather, August is regularly one of the wettest months of the year. We don't get the hard deep frost or dry ground cracking weather
Any idiot can farm lightish ground.

SouthWesterly

Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: »

They'll figure that out after a few hungry years.

Had a spud farmer beside me recommend a no till market gardener to me earlier in the year. Neversink Farm.
Spud was impressed with what was happening.


On another note, the greens would be happy with me today.
Had the lamborghini out cutting the hedges today

Tonynewholland

Tonynewholland wrote: »

Reducing inputs is the road to hobby farming. Which is what the greens are hoping for.

Don't agree with that at all, it's all about how you manage the land and what combination of animals you use to achieve the goals you want.

Tonynewholland wrote: »

what’s the answer for problem weeds like ragwort taking over the countryside.

Use electric fences to tighten stock into high densities and trample problem areas for extremely short durations several times a year. Find the weak points in a "weeds" life cycle and attack it then. Sheep. "Weeds" are there for a reason, it's your job to figure out why. Sprays are only treating symptoms not the root cause which is often our own management.