Teagasc publications are just advertisements for the fert industry.

Say my name

These ads in teagasc publications have my father drove mad. Well he's fine really but he has me drove mad continually showing me these ads. This one in teagasc's Today's Farm.
I'm spreading 15 units N /acre on grazing ground and that's all I'm planning to do in a round as I know more can be got for less and the more N you spread the more carbon you're burning from the soil.
I keep responding with that's 1960's advice when ag research has moved light years ahead of spreading 40 units of N / acre per round.

I even had to show him a tweet from a local cutting forage rye in organic transition with zero bag N applied.
"I dunno" was the response. "But then why have teagasc got full page ads in their literature recommending spreading fertilizer?".

Can anyone help the poor fella out why thus is such?

Mooooo

Its not a teagasc add, it's a paid add, have yet to see any publication not directed at farmers full of adds

Say my name

Mooooo wrote: »

Its jot a teagasc add, it's a paid add, have yet to see any publication not directed at farmers full of adds

Teagasc is supposed to be a neutral non biased civil servant run agricultural advisory service.

It shouldn't require paid advertisements or financial aid from commercial companies to run this service.

Any advertisements under their banner lead their readers/clients to believe that this is endorsed by teagasc and recommended.

cute geoge

fair dues if you can get away with 15 units of n /acre ,On one mighty year for growth years ago ,the neighbour has us all addled there was no need for all the fert. spreading so he skipped spreading for one round ,he was a quiet man for the rest of the year .I would be going with around 20 -25 units of n after each grazing and that is pretty tight

TheBoyConor

Teagasc are a government agency, they should be independent, stick to the facts and be allowing commercial enterprises to peddle their wares in their pages. It is madness and completely against their remit as a research agency. They really ought to be pulled up on it. But of course, like everything in Ireland, they are completely crooked.

Say my name

cute geoge wrote: »

fair dues if you can get away with 15 units of n /acre ,On one mighty year for growth years ago ,the neighbour has us all addled there was no need for all the fert. spreading so he skipped spreading for one round ,he was a quiet man for the rest of the year .I would be going with around 20 -25 units of n after each grazing and that is pretty tight

There's ways and means for everything.

We should be all shown the ways and means by our national government agricultural advisory service especially since two ends of the same service talk opposingly. They'll meet in the middle and the farmer still won't know the advice of how to do so.

But we'll still have ads! :pac:

Dinzee Conlee

I wonder would they let vegan or climate related ads in?

Like, if you rocked up with your money for your ad, and said you wanted to take out an ad saying farmers are killing the world. What would they say?

_Brian

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

I wonder would they let vegan or climate related ads in?

Like, if you rocked up with your money for your ad, and said you wanted to take out an ad saying farmers are killing the world. What would they say?

“Sure, also would you like to sponsor some research on that topic” would be my bet on what they would say.

Long long time since their advice was progressive or relevant to anything other than providing a steady stream of low cost raw ingredients to the processing industries.

timple23

Are there any organic farms run by Teagasc or research even?

Say my name

timple23 wrote: »

Are there any organic farms run by Teagasc or research even?

Johnstown castle used to be an organic dairy farm. Started in 1991. Ceased some years back. Not sure when.
Soil organic matter nitrogen release would be excellent on that farm.
Now a test farm for protected urea.

Green&Red

cute geoge wrote: »

fair dues if you can get away with 15 units of n /acre ,On one mighty year for growth years ago ,the neighbour has us all addled there was no need for all the fert. spreading so he skipped spreading for one round ,he was a quiet man for the rest of the year .I would be going with around 20 -25 units of n after each grazing and that is pretty tight

Noel Hurley who won the dairy grass 10 award last year goes with 17 units

Say my name

timple23 wrote: »

Are there any organic farms run by Teagasc or research even?

Sit down when you read this.

Dr.Noel Culleton, teagasc, Johnstown castle. 22 years ago.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/organic-farming-embraced-with-age-of-designer-milk-1.217155

And just for ..
https://www.fertilizer-assoc.ie/dr-noel-culleton-special-merit-award-winner-2016/

Castlekeeper

On a more subversive level they have weasled their PBI growth rates into the Sunday farming weather forecast the past year or so. Based on about 3000 mostly derogation dairy farms, it's a bit like a property index based on prices in Dalkey!
No pressure now but this is what the real/commercial/top farmers are growing.

Mooooo

What's wrong with grass measurements being in?

Say my name

Mooooo wrote: »

What's wrong with grass measurements being in?

They're based on unknown artificial nitrogen applications.

If there was a base of measurement from zero N applied farms sited around the country and projections of thus. It would make more sense agronomically and meteorologically.

It's normalizing high N inputs and gives a target for the ego led to aim for higher growths at cost to the pocket and the environment.

Mooooo

Say my name wrote: »

They're based on unknown artificial nitrogen applications.

If there was a base of measurement from zero N applied farms sited around the country and projections of thus. It would make more sense agronomically and meteorologically.

It's normalizing high N inputs and gives a target for the ego led to aim for higher growths at cost to the pocket and the environment.

Afaik for the predicted growth they only use those farms which have input the fert figures as well as grass measurements. If you want to be including your figures all you have to do is measure the grass on it and put in what fert you spread.
I think you're jumping a bit there with the last comments, if growth is good people generally say it, same when growth is poor. What we grow determines what we can feed to our cows and if you're writing off those lads that are measuring then where are we at?

Say my name

Mooooo wrote: »

Afaik for the predicted growth they only use those farms which have input the fert figures as well as grass measurements. If you want to be including your figures all you have to do is measure the grass on it and put in what fert you spread.
I think you're jumping a bit there with the last comments, if growth is good people generally say it, same when growth is poor. What we grow determines what we can feed to our cows and if you're writing off those lads that are measuring then where are we at?

Take Castlekeeper or any of the contributors in the organic thread.
What relevance has those figures of predicted growth of fertilized ryegrass have for those farmers?

(You know the push is on from all sides (bar some in teagasc) to follow those farmers).
If you take that as all our future manifestations then does putting predicted growth figures of fertilized ryegrass on the national weather forecast seem backwards to you?

Gillespy

It's neither backwards or progressive. It's information on whats growing on farms. What relevence is the growth on a tiny minority of farms to the majority.

Can we park to idea that the commercial farmer is the only one with an ego. What's this topic about but a ego stroke to the few of ye

Say my name

The preliminary fact remains Gillespy the Dept of Agriculture who are totally independent from teagasc and are the makers of the rules that govern this country are giving farmers two years to cut their fertilizer usage to meet their own emissions targets or else the Dept will take the nuclear option of going Dutch or God knows.
It's not their fault teagasc is not laying this out to farmers on the ground.

If you want to know more for yourself just look up Jack Nolan and you'll get a few webinars for yourself.

wrangler

Say my name wrote: »

The preliminary fact remains Gillespy the Dept of Agriculture who are totally independent from teagasc and are the makers of the rules that govern this country are giving farmers two years to cut their fertilizer usage to meet their own emissions targets or else the Dept will take the nuclear option of going Dutch or God knows.
It's not their fault teagasc is not laying this out to farmers on the ground.

If you want to know more for yourself just look up Jack Nolan and you'll get a few webinars for yourself.

Farmers are too lazy to source information for them selves, they want to be spoon fed it. I used to meet farmers that got caught out with the terms and conditions of various schemes that wouldn't have happened if they bought the IFJ or attended the meetings that were put on for them, then they'd come out with comments such as you have there in a quest to find someone to blame.
Time for them to man up and cop on, the information is there

Say my name

wrangler wrote: »

Farmers are too lazy to source information for them selves, they want to be spoon fed it. I used to meet farmers that got caught out with the terms and conditions of various schemes that wouldn't have happened if they bought the IFJ or attended the meetings that were put on for them, then they'd come out with comments such as you have there in a quest to find someone to blame.
Time for them to man up and cop on, the information is there

In fairness to myself the man has put himself out there to get the message across that the Dept need to see a reduction in fertilizer usage from farmers.
They're giving the chance there for farmers to help themselves and look better on paper, rather than the Dept forcing the issue.

https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=222520269229888&_rdr

TooOldBoots

Hard to grow grass on marginal land without chemical fertilizer or slurry.
Organic is grand if you plan on keeping feck all cattle or you have really fertile land. Otherwise no fertilizer = weeds moss and Rushers

Birdnuts

TooOldBoots wrote: »

Hard to grow grass on marginal land without chemical fertilizer or slurry.
Organic is grand if you plan on keeping feck all cattle or you have really fertile land. Otherwise no fertilizer = weeds moss and Rushers

I have alot of that land in North Mayo and the likes of of FYM and liming gets me a good part of the way in reducing chem fert use. A bit of seaweed is a bonus too. High stocking rates on marginal land is of dubious financial merit in any case given our climate etc.

tractorporn

Say my name wrote: »

Sit down when you read this.

Dr.Noel Culleton, teagasc, Johnstown castle. 22 years ago.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/organic-farming-embraced-with-age-of-designer-milk-1.217155

And just for ..
https://www.fertilizer-assoc.ie/dr-noel-culleton-special-merit-award-winner-2016/

They had an organic demo farm in Athenry for a time but it was wound down for that Newford suckler farm round 2017/18.

amacca

Say my name wrote: »

They're based on unknown artificial nitrogen applications.

If there was a base of measurement from zero N applied farms sited around the country and projections of thus. It would make more sense agronomically and meteorologically.

It's normalizing high N inputs and gives a target for the ego led to aim for higher growths at cost to the pocket and the environment.

Well said....and then ultimately most have to dance to the tune and get paid less for working harder

Neddyusa

Well the biggest fertiliser company in the country do have a seat on the Teagasc board so make from that what you will.

Castlekeeper

As well articulated by SNM, I suppose my gripe with the grass growth figures from PBI being used on the weather forecast are 2 fold. One thats hasn't been grasped by some, is that they simply aren't reflective of the average farm in the country (that grows c.8-12tDM/ha?)
They're based on a small non-representative sample as already described.
The weekly forecast platform is used to indicate that such figures are to be aspired to, and representative of a blueprint of best agricultural practice, which is open and subject to considerable debate.
For the vast majority of Irish farmers that fall short of the eternally drifting individual top 10% targets that are thrown at us, the message is still, your farming and/or your farm is a bit $hit.
It is not helpful in a sector of society that has major isolation, mental health and safety issues, to receive this largely irrelevant dataset as their weekly pep talk.
I'm fully aware it goes over the heads or off the backs of most viewers and it can be easily rectified by using the same metric as used for many other meteorological datasets, % of normal, based on representative samples.
To me farmlife is all about a sense of grounded-ness and balance not chasing my own or anyone else's tail.

wrangler

Castlekeeper wrote: »

As well articulated by SNM, I suppose my gripe with the grass growth figures from PBI being used on the weather forecast are 2 fold. One thats hasn't been grasped by some, is that they simply aren't reflective of the average farm in the country (that grows c.8-12tDM/ha?)
They're based on a small non-representative sample as already described.
The weekly forecast platform is used to indicate that such figures are to be aspired to, and representative of a blueprint of best agricultural practice, which is open and subject to considerable debate.
For the vast majority of Irish farmers that fall short of the eternally drifting individual top 10% targets that are thrown at us, the message is still, your farming and/or your farm is a bit $hit.
It is not helpful in a sector of society that has major isolation, mental health and safety issues, to receive this largely irrelevant dataset as their weekly pep talk.
I'm fully aware it goes over the heads or off the backs of most viewers and it can be easily rectified by using the same metric as used for many other meteorological datasets, % of normal, based on representative samples.
To me farmlife is all about a sense of grounded-ness and balance not chasing my own or anyone else's tail.

It's like all teagasc advice, you take what suits your farm

amacca

wrangler wrote: »

It's like all teagasc advice, you take what suits your farm

I'm of the opinion we would be better off not paying any heed to 99% of what is said.

wrangler

amacca wrote: »

I'm of the opinion we would be better off not paying any heed to 99% of what is said.

Farming (apart from dairying) is changing so little that the advice of ten years ago is still valid.
Was saying to the OH that we've probably come through the best thirty years of farming ever and that seems to be going to change now and become more dependent on product price.

Good loser

amacca wrote: »

I'm of the opinion we would be better off not paying any heed to 99% of what is said.

Disagree strongly with your opinion there.

The commercialisation and prosperity of Irish farming (such as it is) can to a major extent be attributed to their (Teagasc) research and education. Coupled with an outstanding newspaper - the IFJ.

From those we know what works commercially; also in recent years they have been conscious of climate/environmental angles.

Every farmer can take or leave their advices as he/she thinks appropriate.

Birdnuts

Good loser wrote: »

Disagree strongly with your opinion there.

The commercialisation and prosperity of Irish farming (such as it is) can to a major extent be attributed to their (Teagasc) research and education. Coupled with an outstanding newspaper - the IFJ.

From those we know what works commercially; also in recent years they have been conscious of climate/environmental angles.

Every farmer can take or leave their advices as he/she thinks appropriate.

Thats rather a rosy view in terms of farmer numbers, income in many sectors, water quality trends etc. I would be of the opinion that the likes of Teagasc have been very slow to adjust their advice to reflect emerging consumer trends, CAP reforms, EU environmental directives etc.

endainoz

Teagasc do have a decent organics dept but the organization as a whole would not interest me too much. All Ive ever heard from teagasc is to expand and increase production, get more loans, get bigger. Never once did I hear teagasc advise to keep things the same size and not go into debt.

wrangler

endainoz wrote: »

Teagasc do have a decent organics dept but the organization as a whole would not interest me too much. All Ive ever heard from teagasc is to expand and increase production, get more loans, get bigger. Never once did I hear teagasc advise to keep things the same size and not go into debt.

Google teagasc seminars on SUSTAINABLE dairy farm expansion and you'll get loads of seminars by teagasc. I'm sure teagasc had that word in as did IFA .

Neddyusa

Good loser wrote: »

Disagree strongly with your opinion there.

The commercialisation and prosperity of intensive grass-based dairy farming (such as it is) can to a major extent be attributed to their (Teagasc) research and education. Coupled with an outstanding newspaper - the IFJ.

From those we know what works commercially; also in recent years they have been conscious of climate/environmental angles.

Every farmer can take or leave their advices as he/she thinks appropriate.

FYP

wrangler

Good loser wrote: »

Disagree strongly with your opinion there.

The commercialisation and prosperity of Irish farming (such as it is) can to a major extent be attributed to their (Teagasc) research and education. Coupled with an outstanding newspaper - the IFJ.

From those we know what works commercially; also in recent years they have been conscious of climate/environmental angles.

Every farmer can take or leave their advices as he/she thinks appropriate.

That'd be terrible if true, farmers would have to take responsibility for their own stupidity mistakes.

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

Farmers are too lazy to source information for them selves, they want to be spoon fed it. Time for them to man up and cop on, the information is there

That's funny regarding snake oil comments elsewhere

TooOldBoots wrote: »

Hard to grow grass on marginal land without chemical fertilizer or slurry.

There's lots of information out in the world, and from the comfort of your own home can be accessed. If one confines ones thinking to chemical agriculture it'll only end one way, badly.

wrangler wrote: »

Farming (apart from dairying) is changing so little that the advice of ten years ago is still valid.
Was saying to the OH that we've probably come through the best thirty years of farming ever and that seems to be going to change now and become more dependent on product price.

I'd agree with the thirty years, but there are significant changes in farming with people making good livings outside of CAP and the advice that orbits around it like a dung fly would cow shyte.

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

That's funny regarding snake oil comments elsewhere



There's lots of information out in the world, and from the comfort of your own home can be accessed. If one confines ones thinking to chemical agriculture it'll only end one way, badly.



I'd agree with the thirty years, but there are significant changes in farming with people making good livings outside of CAP and the advice that orbits around it like a dung fly would cow shyte.

Yea, we've been lucky, after a bad start in the eighties we experienced a turnaround in the nineties but sadly it's reversing fast now and has been for the last few years.
Apart from when we destocked and converted to tillage to sort a few loans we couldn't have been classed as using much chemical agriculture and since we changed to sheep we've practically been organic, but that's sheep farming not us avoiding modern agriculture and everything didn't end one way as you forecast.

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

Yea, we've been lucky, after a bad start in the eighties we experienced a turnaround in the nineties but sadly it's reversing fast now and has been for the last few years.
Apart from when we destocked and converted to tillage to sort a few loans we couldn't have been classed as using much chemical agriculture and since we changed to sheep we've practically been organic, but that's sheep farming not us avoiding modern agriculture and everything didn't end one way as you forecast.

A forecast is generally for something that happens in the future

einn32

Of course they are. It's called business.

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

A forecast is generally for something that happens in the future

And usually not very dependable

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

And usually not very dependable

This one is. Chemicals are causing us more problems than solutions. All sorts of salesmen selling all sorts of potions, the returning with more concoctions to "treat" the problems the first lot cause. Enriching themselves and pauperising their clients.

einn32

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This one is. Chemicals are causing us more problems than solutions. All sorts of salesmen selling all sorts of potions, the returning with more concoctions to "treat" the problems the first lot cause. Enriching themselves and pauperising their clients.

So ban all chemicals?

einn32

einn32 wrote: »

So ban all chemicals?

I don't use that word. Use what you like, but understand most if not all chemicals have a lethal effect on soil life. Managed correctly that same soil life will do wonders for land. But, it's not a quick fix so reaching for a bag or can is preferable as tomorrow can look after itself.

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't use that word. Use what you like, but understand most if not all chemicals have a lethal effect on soil life. Managed correctly that same soil life will do wonders for land. But, it's not a quick fix so reaching for a bag or can is preferable as tomorrow can look after itself.

Most of the things people worry about never happens, you're just overthinking.
Most people don't care about the environment, so why be the only one that cares

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

Most of the things people worry about never happens, you're just overthinking.
Most people don't care about the environment, so why be the only one that cares

Lots of examples, dung beetles and other insects and how they're being killed with farm insecticides. If you listen to John Kempf's podcast with UK farmer Ben Taylor Davis he talks of the attempt to control blackgrass with up to 7 mix chemicals. All failures, all killing what could be helping.

I'm somewhat educated in this, so not over thinking.

I have no control over other people so generally unless they end up in my business I tell them they're all a great bunch of lads.

I want to improve my land, for my own enjoyment & profit and for the benefit of who comes after me.

Dinzee Conlee

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Lots of examples, dung beetles and other insects and how they're being killed with farm insecticides. If you listen to John Kempf's podcast with UK farmer Ben Taylor Davis he talks of the attempt to control blackgrass with up to 7 mix chemicals. All failures, all killing what could be helping.

I'm somewhat educated in this, so not over thinking.

I have no control over other people so generally unless they end up in my business I tell them they're all a great bunch of lads.

I want to improve my land, for my own enjoyment & profit and for the benefit of who comes after me.

Are you organic Herd, or regenerative?

(I’m not sure if regenerative means organic by default - I don’t think it does?)

yosemitesam1

wrangler wrote: »

Most of the things people worry about never happens, you're just overthinking.
Most people don't care about the environment, so why be the only one that cares

It's often portrayed that relying on chemicals is like driving towards a cliff edge. Think that driving into a very wet field might be a better way of thinking about it. The point where cost of keeping going rises so much that margins go to zero is a much more pressing matter than actually reaching a point where it becomes impossible to do anything.

Dinzee Conlee

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Are you organic Herd, or regenerative?

(I’m not sure if regenerative means organic by default - I don’t think it does?)

I'm not organic, mostly I prefer not draw extra paperwork and rules on myself - I've nothing against organic besides a couple of small quibbles.

Some people are trying to "define" regenerative and I believe this to be a mistake. For me it's a bunch of principles that work the world over then a much larger bunch of practices one can choose from to suit one's own circumstances. It gives a farmer freedom rather than pushing a rigid rules based system on them that may be in conflict with their context.

Jjameson

Jjameson wrote: »

I follow a regenerative soil group on Facebook and it’s a bit all over the place.
The purists would be organic.
But one of the moderators (Stuart Meikle) is practical, well informed and has a good balance of experience to make it worth looking at.

I left it ages ago, way too many headbangers.

To add, the people I found most interesting are all active outside of that group anyway.

wrangler

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

It's often portrayed that relying on chemicals is like driving towards a cliff edge. Think that driving into a very wet field might be a better way of thinking about it. The point where cost of keeping going rises so much that margins go to zero is a much more pressing matter than actually reaching a point where it becomes impossible to do anything.

There were times alright when i wished I had the money to worry about the environment. Costs are increasing big time now, anyone pricing farm buildings is gettin a rude awakening.. Whelan was lucky to build when she did, it'd be 20 -30% more now...... if you could get a builder I hear