How has your farm been affected?

Water John

Rewilding is a dubious proposition. One needs apex predators.

Are farmers an easy scapegoat, classic deflection? From todays Guardian:

'The world’s richest 10% encompasses most of the middle classes in developed countries – anyone paid more than about $40,000 (£32,000) a year. The lavish lifestyles of the very rich – the 1% – attract attention. But the 10% are responsible for half of all global emissions, making them key to ending the climate crisis.'

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/20/revealed-huge-climate-impact-of-the-middle-classes-carbon-divide

If they take action, stop driving their 3 litre 4 x 4 around cities, all the flights etc, I'm fully in to make my contribution, as a farmer.

adriant900

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121392479#Comment_121392479

Your correct, if you are efficient and as a result carry more stock then it will not reduce emissions per hectare, you would be more profitable in my opinion and would reduce emissions per kg of beef produced but if you have a higher throughput per year then you would not be reducing total emissions for your farm.

The call to reduce slaughter age is done with the large assumption that the total number of stock in the country will not increase. They are hoping that the suckler industry will continue it's decline and the dairy industry will stagnate.

minerleague

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121393310#Comment_121393310

Your second point is spot on - the suckler herd is only going one way ( new scep scheme has a reference no of cows to limit most from increasing) Cynic in me thinks they want suckler farmers to keep more dairy bred calves ( If finishing these stock at 18 - 24 months it makes more sense to have them from calves rather than stores to keep them pushed from start)

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121393398#Comment_121393398

Well I would have looked on the reference number as something that prevents lads from decreasing! (There is an inbuilt mechanism to decrease, but it can be done only gradually over time........whereas there is nothing stopping you from increasing if you want)

minerleague

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121393441#Comment_121393441

Well thats true but no payment if you go over the reference number? (didn't join ) In response to OP farm hasn't been affected to any degree yet but I think they are going to catch people with this carbon footprint in future. In Bord Bia my carbon footprint is in the worst 10% ( spread no fertilizer last 3 years, buy little meal in but finish cattle close to 30 mths, calve cows first time mostly 3yo, lowly stocked so kgs produced/acre is low)

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121393519#Comment_121393519

Well actually no extra payment for going more than 50% of your reference number. You don't have to hit that number. Although that figure increases over time.

50% 2023

65% 2025

75% 2027

of your reference number. Which you can reduce by (I think) 20% a year if you wish.

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121392840#Comment_121392840

Some of that aligns with my own views on the matter - however I think the targeting of the suckler herd to carry the can on the Agri side in terms of sorting various environmental issues makes little sense cos its already the most nature friendly type of farming we have and numbers are shrinking anyways. Indeed many of the EIP projects in the West require light grazing by traditional cattle breeds to restore various habitats like Machair and other types of species rich natural grassland etc. What needs looking at is the anomalies in the current CAP that continue to encourage destructive land use practice's in both the farming and forestry sphere eg. overstocking in senstitive upland catchments, spruce forestry on wetlands , further agri input intensification etc.

tanko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121393519#Comment_121393519

That carbon footprint thing was voluntary, you didn’t need to do it to get certified.

Hard Knocks

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121392840#Comment_121392840

Rewilding isn’t as good as some make out. Extensively grazed pastures are good for the environment and water quality

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121393310#Comment_121393310

Well if that's the thinking its in the same league as teagasc pushing dairy expansion and easy calving short gestation runts with zero thought about bull calves imo

You wont finish or get them near to finish earlier of grass easier either (especially the extreme dairyX types.....the whole idea needs to knocked on the head, another stick to beat farmers with on price and another incentive to buy more off the miller/grain merchant to try get them out the door under an age limit etc

they are on the road to making as big of a balls of farming as they have with housing with the meddling.

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121393855#Comment_121393855

Proper rewilding can only occur with top predators, without which you end up with an over population of deer, wild boar etc. that makes the whole thing totally counter productive in terms of restoring habitats. In terms of this country, restoring degraded BNM peatlands, native woodland etc. has merit for many different reasons. Sadly up to now state and semi- state agencies have failed badly in this space as can be gauged by a visit to any of our National Parks:(

Say my name

@alps makes some of argument.

But methane from cows should have never been counted as an emission in this debacle.

It's supposed to be about stopping carbon molecules that are in the earth and deep in the earth from entering the atmosphere and what they say is a greenhouse effect.

We'll say one acre feeds one cow. The area doesn't matter could be two acres or three acres per cow. The methane that that cow expels came from carbon that the grass or herb growing on that land area took down from the atmosphere in co2. The same co2 that we're told must be reduced in the atmosphere. Still with me?

The co2 goes into the plant which goes into the cow which goes again back into the atmosphere via methane. Still with me. This cycle would be carbon neutral neither positive or negative.

However if that acre or two or three that supported that cow. The soil. If that soil is increasing in carbon every year then it's carbon negative. That means the system is pulling in additional carbon than the cow grazing system. So carbon is being put away. It's negative. It's pulling carbon from the atmosphere.

This has been measured on farms in Ireland already grazing cows.

Fin.

minerleague

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121393712#Comment_121393712

I think it shows the future in that you might have to reduce carbon footprint to claim eco part of BPS at some stage

Siamsa Sessions

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121395468#Comment_121395468

I hope the OP doesn't report back that farmers are capable of such scientific logic or all hell will break loose 😂

To be fair, you don't see as much in the media now about GHG or carbon sequestration compared to 12-18 months ago. After the initial hype and press releases then, it dawned on academics and other "experts" that GHG and carbon is hard to measure. And it takes years to build up data. And then, the data might disprove your initial theory, as @Say my name pointed out.

Water quality has since become the new stick to beat livestock farmers. Easier and quicker to measure but that too might disprove the theory that all livestock farming is bad.

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121395525#Comment_121395525

yeah they tend to drop whatever doesn't suit their argument

Lime Tree Farm

The bdgp carbon navigator was a better measure of what is happening than bb are for suckler farmers. You were asked for total tonnages in bdgp whereas as you are asked cows per head per day consumption in bb. Finishers might be measuring per head but I doubt suckler farmers are.

Siamsa Sessions

I was delighted to quote this thread and the list of actions stated by @mr.stonewall at the off-farm job today.

I was at a discussion with a bunch of academics about sustainability, climate change, rural development, new business models, innovation - all those buzz words.

As ever, they started with the most visible aspect: the farmer and what they think farmers should be doing.

Some of the academics ignored the various actions already happening on farm-level. It was nothing personal, but it's just outside their understanding of how the world works.

But it landed with some of them and the discussion was generally more informed as a result.

893bet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121457047#Comment_121457047

While I dig what you are saying. …..I drive a 240k round trip 3 times weekly. And today on the way home in the dark my car was filled with the stink of very fresh slurry after being spread on frozen ground ahead of a lot of rain on three occasion on the 120km stretch .

First time I have smelled it in the last month. 2 of the times were on stretch of road where there are visible large dairy herds I passs daily (200 cows plus). No matter what lads say there are lots not playing ball and all will play eventually.

funkey_monkey

Where are we on soybean usage and alternatives at the minute? The concentrates is probably a bit of a blot on the copy book.

I don't really follow it much, so what is the story here? I'm aware that some stuff used in agri is sub par for human consumption, how much overall?