How has your farm been affected?
-
19-11-2023 6:55pm#1
Hi All,
I am studying a master’s degree in design innovation in Maynooth University. I am currently undertaking a research project on “how to start a conversation with the farming community about climate adaptation”.
From my research to date, it feels like the narrative around climate change is focused on all the things that farmers can’t have, on all the things that farmers need to stop doing etc. I feel that we really need to change this narrative to how Irish farmers can benefit from engaging with sound environmental practices.
In that vein I am reaching out to this online community to get an understanding about the climate challenges individual farmers are having today.
I would really love to hear from you to get an understanding of what’s happening on your farm in terms of climate adaptation.
I really appreciate you taking the time.
Alex.
Tagged:0
Comments
-
First issue is the title of this research. It puts farmers on the naughty step from the word go.
We as farmers are at the coalface of climate issue and we adapt daily.
The biggest is problem is a dictate being expressed on farmers from folks who have very little experience of what it take to be a farmer. As our society has urbanised the understanding that many people in this country have our the day to day life of farmers has shrunk.
We work hard day and night tending to stock and crop, financial pressure, and then a large cohort forcing a green agenda down our throats, while killing our businesses.
What must be remembered is the past 30 years of consumer driven economy of importing crap, taking multiple flights easting food from the opposite side of the world coupled with a throw away culture has made Irish emissions balloon. As farmers we are expected to take the wrap for this. Agricultures emissions are actually falling as farmers engage with solutions that suit their business.
Farmers are not shouting at Dublin to slash it's electric consumption or car usage. It's a very different narrative that forced down our throats.
Remember that the best change happens from the bottom up, not top down. Farmers understand their farms , with multi generational knowledge that academia will never have. And finally if you keep kicking a dog, don't be surprised when he bites; we are at that stage now as the debate has became polarised
46 -
-
Probably more of an affect on the farmer than the farm. With mental issues and what not caused by constant regulation add ons.
As one example regularly mentioned, the planes in the air, with regulated add ons too possibly, have no quotas capped on them for reduced flights thus not reduceing aviation fuel being burned.
Farmers mental health moreso than the farm seems to be what's under pressure.
7 -
One issue on communication is the "them verse us" angle of many debates. The farm lobby groups or independent rural TDs go into the media to represent farmers and debate environmentalists. The farming side usually do a terrible job at representing me as a farmer, they are poorly spoken and come across as climate change denial, objectiving to all change. They are speaking to their base looking for votes but are deliberately causing division for their own benefit.
You ask what effect climate adaption is having on our farm, it is costing us money, forcing investment in technology such as Low Emmission Slurry Spreading (and then a new tractor to drive the new machine). It is also costing money in reducing productivity such as less fertiliser spreading and lowering of the nitrates derogation limit.
Not what you asked but climate change is also clearly visible on farm in the last few years which is very scary. We have drought every summer to some extent followed by months of record breaking rainfall. That is also directly costing us money.
2 -
@alexfarmingproject I'm going to turn this and take it on a tangent and I will list the actions that have happened on my own farm over the past 5 years that have reduced emissions
1. Earlier slaughter of my stock. This has reduced the amount of methane
2. Extended the average length of the grazing season. This year didn't play ball but it. This is the cheapest way and most carbon efficient way to feed livestock.
3. Reduced my fertiliser usage by approx 40%
4. All slurry is spread using low emission slurry spreading
5 clover has been introduced to 30%of the farm. Less N fert needed with this.
6. Better genetics in the breeding of stock. This lead to better lIve weight gain and less Imported feed.
7. Currently planting 400m of new hedging this winter, no hedges have been removed for over 30 years
8. 100 trees planted last winter
9. Increased the buffer zones by water course to prevent potential run off of nutrients
10. Replaced all lighting on the farm to LED.
11. Started to use protected urea to reduce ammonia losses.
12. Heat my home by using a carbon neutral source. Wind fell trees
13. All farm plastics are recycled
14. Past 2 years have being using faecal egg counts to determine if livestock need treatment for parasites
15. Vaccination of stock to prevent usage of antibiotics
16. Have ground dedicated to red clover as means of producing a home grown protein feed for livestock to reduce the reliance on imported soya.
17. Improved the farmyard to prevent potential run off.
18. Soil testing to target nutrient to the soils that need it and not to waste them.
19. Regular weighting of stock to help build data for genetic gain in the future
20. Genomic sampling of all female stock to help the national database breed more environmentally friendly stock. Eg faster to finish, this reducing methane
21. All bovines are excluded from watercourses for the past 20 years.
22. Engaged with environment training schemes. Last Saturday I attended one.
The above show that farmers are engaging with climate adaptation, this is not being recognised by folks outside the farming community. Open the eyes and see the wood from the trees. Don't waste your time or other peoples money on a project thesis that will gather dust on a shelf some where. Educate people to go and see what farmers are doing, respect this and the door will open
18 -
Advertisement
-
Well said. You were much more diplomatic than I could be.
They started by calling it Global warming but got called out on that so they changed it to climate change. You'd swear the climate never changed before!
It is now an industry and we even have people doing a masters on it! You couldn't make it up!
1 -
OP, when you say a 'project', what exactly is the structure and what are you investigating? Does it contain, new research and a full literature review?
I am just asking to get a good handle on where it's going. Without a disciplined theme, the outcomes for you will be poor.
Stonewall, has given an excellent basis of actions being taken by farmers. As the Dutch experience shows, if this dialogue is not handled correctly, it can go fairly tits up quickly. Not a phrase to submit to your professor😉
6 -
Thanks for all of these responses, very appreciated.
I completely agree that we don’t understand what its like to be a farmer in Ireland and that is why I think it’s important to ask these questions.
The project is about starting a conversation. So that people can learn more about what it’s like for you personally as farmers. We aren’t suggesting any solutions. Its not a problem some college students will be able to solve.
What we want to get out of it is to learn your side of the story and argue how going to the people affected is a better way to start solving a problem than government policies, regulations or fear mongering.
Thanks again, all of this is very relevant to the points we are trying to make in our project.
0 -
@adriant900 on the drought and heavy rain issue. We have always had pockets of drought and wet horrible years. We must look at the way this data is being gathered, up to 15 years ago this was done by human reading a rainfall gauge or a thermometer, now we have to the second for the same day. This is leading for a rise in reporting of extremes.
1 -
Hey Alex,
Stonewall gives a very good synopsis of what many farmers are doing (mirrored exactly here).
I feel there are 2 things that farmers need to focus on..
1..The logistical changes required to cope with weather changes, longer periods of slurry storage and buffer feed requirements coupled with shorter planting and harvesting slots. I do see livestock farming being the most resilient form of food production going forward.
2. Emissions reduction. As we have been nailed on the methane emissions arguement, soley to buy time for the rest of society to get to terms with reducing its CO2 emissions, we have no choice but to work towards the 25% reduction.
If we take on board the MACC advise, we will be on our way to acheiving this and should start adding to our recent reductions anually.
The gap between what our industry and the rest of society will be acheiving will grow massively. I have absolutely no belief that countries/states/fuel companies that own and control fossil fuel reserves will ever settle at leaving them in the ground. We will make no headway here.
Farmers will have another opportunity coming up to 2030 to force a review of the way methane is being counted.
Respiration (CO2) from people, animals, pets, birds...indeed all beings is not included in inventories for reduction. This is because the only source of carbon that a being emits in CO2 came from the food eaten and the food had previously removed the CO2 from the atmosphere...
Where is the source of carbon in methane from livestock?
You got it...
Methane should not be included..
Except.
If we reduce biogenic methane, reduce greenhouse gas stock and create an allowance for further fossil fuel emissions.
Therefore we need to count Methane....it's the only solution on the table..
1 -
Advertisement
-
As a group it is vital that farmers are bought into this project and shared ownership can take place. If its a focus group capturing the views of farmers on how to "start the conversation", sorry I will rephrase that, "exploring actions and potential actions" will be an easier sell.
It's very simple. The debate is so polarised, just have a look at twitter and the actions of some of the enviro posterboys namely Gibbons, Fogarty and rohu. There interactions are only doing one thing, driving a wedge. The sooner that, and I will use an agriculture term, "get the road" the better for all sides. Remember the noisy wheel gets the oil, but it's the first one to fall off the wagon. Hopefully we are close
5 -
Have raised this point before but on point 1 above have you increased cattle numbers to eat grass not eaten by cattle killed earlier? Badly stated but overall farm emissions remain the same surely. I kill suckler bred cattle at 28 - 30 months, now if I kill them at 24 months 30% of my farm would be idle if I keep same number of cows. As an aside killing cattle younger is a more intensive approach - cutting silage May, dairy farm style paddock grazing etc. not much room for sward diversity IMO
1 -
I can't think of another highly technical, capital intensive, specialized industry where Joe Public thinks he knows better than those who live it every day as their job for 40 to 70 years.
The ignorance of the general public and of gov/lobby bodies is only exceeded by their arrogance.
I agree with the first detailed reply above:
Coming at this as something which has to be 'explained' to farmers because we're failing to understand it is utterly doomed to failure due to the ignorance and arrogance of that approach.
Coming at it as 'persuading' us is similar. That's simply coercion. That won't work either.
How about if there was a trading mentality applied: You: (Civil society who won't stop buying plastic crap and flying around the world) give us something in return for us being expected to degrade our only asset, run down our industry over time, end our multi-generational family investment and involvement in the most basic and connected activity in human history - feeding ourselves and winning wealth (Lol) by feeding others.
Please don't insult our intelligence by mentioning CAP, - that's designed to benefit general society, not farmers. If you're not aware of why that's the case, then you're not informed or competent enough to complete this project.
No, - It would have to be very VERY big.
Maybe a lifetime income for 3 or 4 generations of our families.
Crazy? Maybe not, - there's precedent.
This has been done previously with the Brit landlords who once 'owned' our land before the land commission broke up the estates. Unfortunately for them a gov change here in 1932 scuppered our end of that deal. No idea if the Brits continued or continue to pay them from the public purse.
David Cameron's father was in the 1960s still collecting a payment from the British gov for his distant ancestor 'giving up' his slave trade business many generations ago.
Trade with us, don't try to scam us and lie to us about your motives and you'll have a better result.
We are a declining number and % of society, we may have a touch of seige mentality about us, we are a bit depressed and beaten down, but we still have plenty bite left, and never forget, we own most of the surface of this country...
We see this as an existential battle for our survival. D'ont fxck with us unless you're willing to go the whole hog and just kill us all off and take the land. That's been tried in recent history too, with predictable results, - Zimbabwe is now unable to feed itself.
There's some food for thought for you.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command”
6 -
Slaughter age has dropped from 29 months to an average of about 25-26 months. This has reduced methane but I have also decided to carry 15% more stock. On the balance it's a small reduction on my farm, but as a country it would be huge
All of the above of May silage, paddocks and trying to be be efficient have been the backbone of leaving profit before SFP for the past 20 years
1 -
I think a feeling of fairness is also a key in the whole equation. We are being asked to do the early heavy lifting because of the half life of methane. As mentioned above lots of people jetting off to Barcelona for a weekend. To add to the fumes TMK the aviation fuel is tax free.
0 -
How would the methane emissions of your 26 month old bullock compare to that of a 36 to 42 month old one fed entirely on grass with a little home saved hay each winter as they would have been 40 years ago?
Not for one moment suggesting we all go back there, but extensively grazed cattle on marginal land simply have to be lower emission beef than something that has eaten its own bodyweight in imported ration with all the emissions of that and its transport fully accounted for.
The bullock currently residing in my freezer never tasted ration, PRG, clover or reseeded grass. He got two winters of a couple of bales of old meadow silage, and 3 summers of purple deergrass (fionán) Im sorry I didn't leave him to 36 months as I'd have had about 20% more beef and the marbling would have been more pronounced.
He's delicious. How can quickly finishing beef be more environmentally sustainable. Please explain.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command”
10 -
As farmers we have always dealt with poor weather and weather events and I can't say it has got worse.
The biggest change I see is the change in perception of farmers from being guardians of the countryside and food providers to being a unnecessary nuisance and in indeed a hindrance to other people's lifestyle and the economic wellbeing of the country.the message in the irish media is very clear- if we got rid of farming all our emissions problems would be solved
12 -
I can't think of another highly technical, capital intensive, specialized industry where Joe Public thinks he knows better than those who live it every day as their job for 40 to 70 years.
The ignorance of the general public and of gov/lobby bodies is only exceeded by their arrogance.
I keep trying to tease out where the general public think they have more knowledge than farmers? Your not the only poster to make such a claim but I've yet to see any evidence of "Joe public" thinking he knows better.
It's pointless isolationism of farmers vs "Joe public" by farmers themselves and only serves to polarize the argument.
0 -
1) I think a major issue is the disassociation of food production with farming. Every single item in the food aisle is a result of multiple farmers supplying inputs. It’s not Tesco or Aldi adding the value to the product.
2) Too much rhetoric that doesn’t stand up. For example it’s often given that “farms need to diversity their income streams”. Not possible (die to the scale of the average farm) and if all farms diversify then the supply into those markets will very quickly exceed demand.
140k farms in Ireland…..so add in some extra Petting farms, Solar farms, wind farms, some snail farming, some small scale horticulture, some direct to market selling at farmers markets and another 20 options for diversification.
All those markets are saturated now, incomes on those who diversified drops and we this have the other 135k farms to worry about.
5 -
I suppose it depends on metrics used ,
Your bullock in the freezer isnt pushed , would be considered low intensity, low input - but low output,too ,
If you include the carbon sequestration of the pastures he fed on , then your system is probably carbon negative ,
But are all stock the same (size - feed to weight efficency blah blah blah) ? Are all pastures counted the same , how about farm management and the yard -use of plastics - run off , building ,imbedded carbon in concrete , diesel use on the farm ect ect ,
Most farmers are going to strive to be as productive/ efficent as possible given the limitations of regulation ,market forces ect ,
Anyway its not one size fits all , never really has been,
Slava ukraini 🇺🇦
4 -
Advertisement
-
It's not ransom. It's alerting to the possible/likely consequences of continued unjustified attacks on the sector. At a time when the average age is about 60 years and the government aren't doing a whole lot to make it attractive for a younger generation to take over.
0 -
Fair play to the OP for making the effort to come onto the farming forum here and ask questions.
But it's a sad state of affairs when the OP's supervisor seems to think farmers still haven't got the message when you see the list of activities detailed by @mr.stonewall above.
Farmers have been blasted about climate, GHGs, water quality, etc. for years now. We are not deaf, no more than we're stupid and unaware of how important sustainability is to our work. If we're not environmentally sustainable, we'll be the first ones to suffer.
The leaders of our farm orgs, like the leaders in any political party, do not reflect the views of most members on the ground. There's layers of admin and management between paid officials at the top and volunteers at the bottom.
Hopefully the comments on here will help inform the OP's study. And in turn, the OP might feed back to their supervisor (or anyone who'll listen!) that we're not all turnip-munchers who have our heads in the sand on climate change.
Trading as Sullivan’s Farm on YouTube
13 -
There is a few parts to it, when Teagasc talk about lowering age of slaughter they are not encouraging cattle to be pushed with grain they are talking about what Mr.stonewall is doing, efficiency at every point, good herd health, good grass management etc.
Cattle produce less methane per day grazing grass than fed indoors and they produce less methane eating good quality clover/PRG than old more natural swards of grass. On the flip side the old natural swards of grass will lightly be much better for biodiversity. So they produce less methane per day and are alive for less days so the emissions per kg of beef is significantly less.
Hopefully I don't get too much abuse for the above facts
1 -
"Cattle produce less methane per day grazing grass than fed indoors and they produce less methane eating good quality clover/PRG than old more natural swards of grass. On the flip side the old natural swards of grass will lightly be much better for biodiversity. So they produce less methane per day and are alive for less days so the emissions per kg of beef is significantly less."
Just wondering where you got this info? I was of the opinion that tannins present in plants of older type pastures (Birds foot trefoil etc.) would be beneficial to methane reduction in the rumen. That's just my uneducated take on things from my own personal reading of how it works. More than willing to be proved wrong on this.
0 -
We must remember that approx 60% of the calculated GHG in agriculture are produced from rumination of livestock. The only real ways to reduce this is to either reduce our stock levels or move stock through the system quicker.
The suckler herd is declining, dairying has reached a peak, but every dairy cow will have a calf and a large number will end up in the beef system. With the potential ban on export of calves on the horizon this will only add to the system. Long term the number of stock is not going to plummet to help the reduction of 25%. The only logical way to help achieve this is make sure every animal is as efficient, this will be earlier slaughter and a big bug bear of mine is suckler heifers calving at 3yr old. While I admire @Packrat system, simply having a really low stocking rate and working the payments system will have a short shelf life. Just look at the way a bout of inflation has hit the value of the payments. Compare it to beef price of early 2020, it's ahead by 25%. Holding a large number of cattle to 42 month is not going to cut the mustard for most farming systems. It's simple a niche market. Every day we have an animal on the farm it's a cost, reduce these days and we drive up the margin
0 -
100% imo......I cannot wrap my head around the argument that earlier slaughter leads to reduced emissions......its a pile of ...well manure afaic. I've asked a similar question to your own hundreds of times only to be blinded by sidesteps but in the end after I've unraveled all the jargon there isnt an explantion of how eary slaughter could possibly reduce emissions given the natural follow on actions one is likely to take if you are moving animals through the system quicker.......
Post edited by amacca on7 -
but if I'm efficient, surely I will carry more numbers to increase any profit I get per head....If I allow an animal to age and gain weight naturally then ill be able to carry less animals....I still don't get it. Id need to see systems side by side to see proof. On the face of it an older animal gaining weight naturally off grass would produce less greenhouse on a given area as you could carry less.....they shouldn't be lowering slaughter ages if they want to reduce emissions afaics, + its just another stick to beat farmers with when it comes to price/spec
0 -
but If I move stock through the system quicker...wont I just move more heads through in a given time so where is the reduction in emissions?
0 -
As a country the quicker we move stock through, its the equivalent of a cutting numbers. Dairy numbers now are stable and potentially falling. Suckler calf numbers are collapsing. Overall all the numbers are falling. Add in an earlier kill on say 50% of stock this will make a good dent into the 65% of Agri GHGs that come from livestock. I'm looking at my own system an it's stable for emissions, with more margin and a slight increase in numbers due to an earlier kill.
Just look at nitrates figures according to the age of stock. Older than a year it increases, you have a jump at 2 yr old. Similar will apply to livestock with methane. The bigger the animal the more methane it produces. The more bigger the stock you carry the more methane being out out a day. Just look at the KO% of prime heifers to cull cows. Look to the gut fill and this is due to a greater rumen. What type of stock does the factories and consumer want. A carcase weight in the range of 280-340kg. Otherwise the cuts won't fit in the packs.
As an older generation and other famers cut back due to age and organics. There is an opening here to fill the gap.. How long are were hearing of a potential slaughter premium for u24mths. The way it will happen is the u30mths is going to slip back bit by bit over a decade.
Earlier adopters of change have a headstart
0 -
Advertisement
-
If for instance marginal farming areas , so mountain sheep ,or very boggy heavy land were removed from commercial farming altogether, so increased payments for whatever environmental measures undertaken ,but no live stock..
Would that decrease the national methane levels ? While not dropping production massively,
And for gawd sake reward the farmers who are obviously following the regs - and seriously reducing emissions and environmental impact ,working to improve water quality ect ..
Slava ukraini 🇺🇦
1
