Walk slowly in the opposite direction......they will catch up

Tonynewholland

[Deleted User] wrote: »

these methane emissions is greatest load of sh1te i ever heard,lads thinking few cows in ireland are resoonsible for warming the plannet are engaging in a weird form of diverion argueing,obv its heavy industry is multiple more responsible



I feel the greens,have really lost the plot on this,i remember growing up,they argueing on water quality etc,highly reasonable and attainable objectives (it pisses me off lads spreading slurry before rain and on saturated land and the excessive spreading of fertilizer)


....reducing irish herd,talking about cows/grass haveing carbon sequence is utterly delusional ,when wuhan has a higher carbon footprint than the entire island and china has zero commitment to reducing its output

The greens changed their minds on halving the national herd when it came to it. Ireland is way to reliant on international companies I can’t see the government shutting down an industry that keeps rural Ireland ticking over. It would be like shooting yourself in both feet

Say my name

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Land is saturated around here and lads are throwing out slurry last fortnight,as they havnt enough storage/capacity with all the rain aswell,thats only going one place

I could see lads being required to increase slurry storage to having capacity for 9 months per cow,

You'd want storage from October to March by right.
I wouldn't make it mandatory yet but if I was in power or advisory like teagasc I would be making sounds about it that's it's in everyone's best interest to make best use of that manure and save on chemical fertilizer.

https://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/slurry-and-manure-management/how-slurry-inoculants-helped-halve-farmer-fertiliser-use

richie123

richie123 wrote: »

Agree with you to a certain extent re pollution and emissions in far flung places.
But methane is the big problem with cows its a highy potent gas. As well as nitrates and water quality.
I'm just stating whats likely to happen here in the next few years.
Remember we're the good boys in the class.
Bolsanaro will help us out though,when we've our emissions s target met and the national herd well cut back.
Out of sight and out of mind.

Been a while since I've been bothered to listen to the methane side of things, afaicr methane lasts for ten years, then transforms into carbon dioxide. Yes, methane is more damaging, but it's on a cycle cow-methane-co2, so it's not accumulating itself. The co2 can be dealt with by what I'm constantly banging on about management. It's, pardon the pun, bull**** policy to blame the animal, it's the management of animals that's at fault. That, to be honest, is peoples fault. Where's the bunker?

Fossil fuels are new carbon, they've been locked away for however many years but man has decided with the help of technology (beware solutions involving technology) to extract this new carbon, burn it and add it to the atmosphere or **** around with it and create problems like artificial fertiliser or other crap causing pollution issues in water.

Change mindset and the change in management will follow of it's own accord.

Tonynewholland

Say my name wrote: »

You'd want storage from October to March by right.
I wouldn't make it mandatory yet but if I was in power or advisory like teagasc I would be making sounds about it that's it's in everyone's best interest to make best use of that manure and save on chemical fertilizer.

https://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/slurry-and-manure-management/how-slurry-inoculants-helped-halve-farmer-fertiliser-use

I agree about the storage. In around 2006 you could write off 50% of the cost of building new slurry storage in one year it was a great way of putting tanks in place on farms.

yosemitesam1

Deleted User wrote: »

Been a while since I've been bothered to listen to the methane side of things, afaicr methane lasts for ten years, then transforms into carbon dioxide. Yes, methane is more damaging, but it's on a cycle cow-methane-co2, so it's not accumulating itself. The co2 can be dealt with by what I'm constantly banging on about management. It's, pardon the pun, bull**** policy to blame the animal, it's the management of animals that's at fault. That, to be honest, is peoples fault. Where's the bunker?

Fossil fuels are new carbon, they've been locked away for however many years but man has decided with the help of technology (beware solutions involving technology) to extract this new carbon, burn it and add it to the atmosphere or **** around with it and create problems like artificial fertiliser or other crap causing pollution issues in water.

Change mindset and the change in management will follow of it's own accord.

The problem is that it's in big business's interest to demonize agriculture. Food companies make much better profits on plant food and then you have data centres, throwaway tech/fashion and any number of other sectors looking for distraction from their own terrible records

yosemitesam1

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

The problem is that it's in big business's interest to demonize agriculture. Food companies make much better profits on plant food and then you have data centres, throwaway tech/fashion and any number of other sectors looking for distraction from their own terrible records

Yes sure they do, but that doesn't solve agriculture's own issues, merely deflects from them. Either those issues get addressed by farmers for farmers, or farmers allow the space for other lobby groups to influence legislation.

The latter seems to be the strategy.

vincenzolorenzo

Birdnuts wrote: »

Well they've kicked off big time near my parents place in North Kildare with a massive upgrade of the Osberstown treatment plant that serves a big chunk of that region. ATM they seem to be prioritizing plants discharging to freshwater as that appears to be were pollution problems are most severe/urgent according to the latest EPA report.

That's the second biggest plant in the country though. Its the huge number of very small treatment plants that are really way behind. IW will get them sorted, but 5 years does sound very optimistic

vincenzolorenzo

Reggie. wrote: »

Serious area on a shed roof. How to get the heat to a house the is the question. Insulation is only so good

They'd be PV panels on the roof, so generating electricity rather than hot water. The technology is simple and proven to work in an Irish climate. The downside with farming is that the load profile is not a good match for generation profile, particularly on dairy farms. Max generation at midday, and very little (relative) in morning or evening. So you're looking at battery storage instead, which adds €€€'s to the cost

Say my name

vincenzolorenzo wrote: »

They'd be PV panels on the roof, so generating electricity rather than hot water. The technology is simple and proven to work in an Irish climate. The downside with farming is that the load profile is not a good match for generation profile, particularly on dairy farms. Max generation at midday, and very little (relative) in morning or evening. So you're looking at battery storage instead, which adds €€€'s to the cost

There's a dairy manager on a farm near to me that made the claim that their electricity needs are being met by renewables. Now they have a wind turbine and solar but I thought that was an interesting statement.
Don't know any more than that but the family on the farm would be whizzes on renewables.
The manager is not half bad either on sustainable practices either.

atlantic mist

i dont really get the major impact the "renewable technology" like solar, pv and wind makes on the enviroment, it takes a lot of natural resources to make any of the renewables, out weighing the benifit in all cases

wind turbine (which is most efficient of current renewables) use a huge amount of steel which is dug in mines, use sand and lime in concrete which will never be taken back out of the ground, useful life 30 years

batteries need cobalt mined in congo....were just swapping oil for mines

yosemitesam1

atlantic mist wrote: »

i dont really get the major impact the "renewable technology" like solar, pv and wind makes on the enviroment, it takes a lot of natural resources to make any of the renewables, out weighing the benifit in all cases

wind turbine (which is most efficient of current renewables) use a huge amount of steel which is dug in mines, use sand and lime in concrete which will never be taken back out of the ground, useful life 30 years

batteries need cobalt mined in congo....were just swapping oil for mines

In order to meet the renewable targets more metal has to be mined over the next 30 years than the total mined to date if I remember that right and something like every 50-100k electric cars on our roads needs the equivalent of a medium sized power station built

Say my name

atlantic mist wrote: »

i dont really get the major impact the "renewable technology" like solar, pv and wind makes on the enviroment, it takes a lot of natural resources to make any of the renewables, out weighing the benifit in all cases

wind turbine (which is most efficient of current renewables) use a huge amount of steel which is dug in mines, use sand and lime in concrete which will never be taken back out of the ground, useful life 30 years

batteries need cobalt mined in congo....were just swapping oil for mines

Swapping steel with steel maybe.
Internal combustion engines are not made of thin air either. And you need oil for lubrication for the pistons then as well as the fuel.
Concrete pads for turbines will be used again and again.
Just design the technology that it can be recycled again and again.

We need energy independence again like Ardnacrusha gave us in the first place.
It's just on the micro farm level we're talking now instead of the national age of independence of years ago.

Siamsa Sessions

Saw this on Facebook and thought it relevant (if a bit too simplistic) for this discussion

Reggie.

Say my name wrote: »

Swapping steel with steel maybe.
Internal combustion engines are not made of thin air either. And you need oil for lubrication for the pistons then as well as the fuel.
Concrete pads for turbines will be used again and again.
Just design the technology that it can be recycled again and again.

We need energy independence again like Ardnacrusha gave us in the first place.
It's just on the micro farm level we're talking now instead of the national age of independence of years ago.

Isn't there an issue with the blades tho? They cant be recycled or reused. Have to be buried.

Most steel nowadays is recycled steel rather than smelted iron ore

enricoh

Say my name wrote: »

There's a dairy manager on a farm near to me that made the claim that their electricity needs are being met by renewables. Now they have a wind turbine and solar but I thought that was an interesting statement.
Don't know any more than that but the family on the farm would be whizzes on renewables.
The manager is not half bad either on sustainable practices either.

Talking to a lad at the weekend who just signed on the dotted line for solar panels on his farm. E1000 an acre for 30 years n he can keep sheep under them. 5 years of appeals etc but got there eventually.
He's a big advocate for solar panels now anyway!!

Say my name

enricoh wrote: »

Talking to a lad at the weekend who just signed on the dotted line for solar panels on his farm. E1000 an acre for 30 years n he can keep sheep under them. 5 years of appeals etc but got there eventually.
He's a big advocate for solar panels now anyway!!

Maybe it's changed but I think bps payments won't be paid on that land if it's under panels.
Mightnt make a difference to some but there's some who've known for years about getting in and have been snapping up leased land wherever they could to keep their payment.

Say my name

Say my name wrote: »

Maybe it's changed but I think bps payments won't be paid on that land if it's under panels.
Mightnt make a difference to some but there's some who've known for years about getting in and have been snapping up leased land wherever they could to keep their payment.

Many getting €2,470/ha bps?

Say my name

Reggie. wrote: »

Isn't there an issue with the blades tho? They cant be recycled or reused. Have to be buried.

Most steel nowadays is recycled steel rather than smelted iron ore

Had to look it up.
They're even talking of turning them into biochar. God help us.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51325101

When some give out about different tree species being used on land in char. I wouldn't be using fiberglass as biochar.

Say my name

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Many getting €2,470/ha bps?

No but there are those on 80k of a bps.
Even if they bale shyte and leave it on leased land as a hobby they'll still collect the 80k. It'd be chump change to some but it'd be their chump change that they wouldn't let go.

Bass Reeves

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Many getting €2,470/ha bps?

Highest rate now should be 700/HA. Payments are supposed to converge more before 2026. Lowest payment to be 75% of national average. Highest will be below 500 by then. As well greening is to be separated and you will have to fulfill actual criteria. Some talk that those in derogation will not get greening unless they carry out some serious environmental tasks

If I was getting €1k for solar panels I could graze graze underneath I wouldn't be worrying about BPS on those acres.

Hard Knocks

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If I was getting €1k for solar panels I could graze graze underneath I wouldn't be worrying about BPS on those acres.

What sort of grass would there be on that plot in 5-10 years?
No topping, grass in constant shade

Hard Knocks

Hard Knocks wrote: »

What sort of grass would there be on that plot in 5-10 years?
No topping, grass in constant shade

I wouldn't be overly worried.

Dinzee Conlee

Hard Knocks wrote: »

What sort of grass would there be on that plot in 5-10 years?
No topping, grass in constant shade

Sure I suppose the same as under trees in a north facing field...

Am sure some grass species wouldn’t do great, but I imagine some would be grand...

Reggie.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wouldn't be overly worried.

After the 30 years just reseed

richie123

enricoh wrote: »

Talking to a lad at the weekend who just signed on the dotted line for solar panels on his farm. E1000 an acre for 30 years n he can keep sheep under them. 5 years of appeals etc but got there eventually.
He's a big advocate for solar panels now anyway!!

Yes and as u go towards the south east it increases to 1100 and 1200.(greater solar gain)
Index linked..too.
The solar company actually pay u to graze sheep on it as it would cost them to keep down growth regardless.
Single payment could be leased out you'd get at least 50 % back.
On that issue there's talk that something similar to forestry where u can keep your entitlements is being considered.
Its an absolute no brainer for farmers bar your in dairy.

Nimbyism planning eco studies ..bureaucracy are the biggest problems.

patsy_mccabe

enricoh wrote: »

Talking to a lad at the weekend who just signed on the dotted line for solar panels on his farm. E1000 an acre for 30 years n he can keep sheep under them. 5 years of appeals etc but got there eventually.
He's a big advocate for solar panels now anyway!!

Is that index linked? 1000 euro won't be worth much in 30 years.

richie123

richie123 wrote: »

Yes and as u go towards the south east it increases to 1100 and 1200.(greater solar gain)
Index linked..too.
The solar company actually pay u to graze sheep on it as it would cost them to keep down growth regardless.
Single payment could be leased out you'd get at least 50 % back.
On that issue there's talk that something similar to forestry where u can keep your entitlements is being considered.
Its an absolute no brainer for farmers bar your in dairy.

Nimbyism planning eco studies ..bureaucracy are the biggest problems.

Keeping payments is already a thing in the Native Woodland Scheme.

TooOldBoots

Deleted User wrote: »

Keeping payments is already a thing in the Native Woodland Scheme.

Except your land becomes classed as forestry so it goes from the average value of 10k/acre down to as low as 1.5k/acre. Yeah great Scheme

TooOldBoots

TooOldBoots wrote: »

Except your land becomes classed as forestry so it goes from the average value of 10k/acre down to as low as 1.5k/acre. Yeah great Scheme

I never said it was a good scheme. If you look back over my posts you'll see I've warned people away from it. However, it is correct to say that keeping payments is a factor in that scheme.