Fields of lush green grass and nothing else.

Car99 wrote: »

I'd like to get farmers thoughts on somethings I've notice over the last few years . I'm not criticising or judging how things are done id just like to know if farmers have noticed the same and are in any way concerned for the future.

I've lived in the country all my life , 45 years, in the Golden Vale .
Growing up I spent alot of time in a truck collecting bulk milk all over the area and so got to see alot of the farmland within a 20 mile radius of my home .
In the last few years its dawned on me that the landscape looks nothing like it did 30 years ago. Now most fields are dark green with not a sign of a hogweed or thistle , alot bigger and tidier drainage trenches (dykes we use to call em ) with hedgegrows cut down to a fraction of their previous size .
Rarely do I hear a pheasant calling or a rabbit sprint across the road in front of me at night . Hedgehogs and frogs were very common on the roads also years ago not now so I presume their number have declined.
Butterfly and bees also alot less common now.
Back in the day late August there were always a good few local fields with mushrooms now I rarely hear of any field with mushrooms.
A report today's says 40% reduction in insects has been observed and it will lead to big eco system issues in the near future

I know financial pressure and progress is pushing farmers to extract every last cent of profit from their land but at what cost to the eco systems on their land.

What incentives could be given to irradicate the use of pesticides and reduce the pressure on farmers to not have to farm so intensively?

I want to thank you for your thought-provoking question; I have read some thought-provoking responses but am finished with this thread. I have said what I wanted, apart from this.


I do not know what would incentivise food-producers to use strategies which harness the powers of nature rather than oppose nature.



Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" was published in 1962. ( Wikipedia has an excellent entry on Carson's work and the public and scientific reception of the books' premise if anyone is interested).



It intrigues me that in the subsequent 56 years very few scientifically-based comparative studies have been done on outcomes of populations fed by organic- versus conventionally-produced foods. Given the fundamental importance of nutrition the absence of unbiased research is "odd"........to put it mildly!


Absent such unbiased investigation those who believe conventional food-production and direction of use of land is as it should be, will continue to believe so. Those of us who believe the bio-sphere and our species' position in it to be integrated on every level and experience that integration to be at crisis point will continue to believe that.


Thank you again for articulating an important issue.

Chisler2 wrote: »

I want to thank you for your thought-provoking question; I have read some thought-provoking responses but am finished with this thread. I have said what I wanted, apart from this
I do not know what would incentivise food-producers to use strategies which harness the powers of nature rather than oppose nature.
Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" was published in 1962. ( Wikipedia has an excellent entry on Carson's work and the public and scientific reception of the books' premise if anyone is interested).
It intrigues me that in the subsequent 56 years very few scientifically-based comparative studies have been done on outcomes of populations fed by organic- versus conventionally-produced foods. Given the fundamental importance of nutrition the absence of unbiased research is "odd"........to put it mildly!
Absent such unbiased investigation those who believe conventional food-production and direction of use of land is as it should be, will continue to believe so. Those of us who believe the bio-sphere and our species' position in it to be integrated on every level and experience that integration to be at crisis point will continue to believe that.
Thank you again for articulating an important issue.

Chisler - first bear with me if I find some of your comments a bit hard to read due to a somewhat different use of syntax. Apologies if I have picked up anything wrong.

Just a couple of points. Agricultural practice does not by definition 'oppose nature". Agriculture utilises seasons and growing cycles in order to produce crops and rear livestock. It is true however to say, that in Ireland these types of agricultural activities sometime support but have also displaced indiginous ecosystems and wild animals. Much of this at least partial displacement occurred when the land was first settled many millennia ago These impacts can be contrasted with the almost total displacement which occurs with the ongoing spread of urban areas and associated human infrastructure.

If you note I already replied to the OPs post and detailed that much of the observed changes are often dependant on a viewers perception and that the causes of such change are not always easy to determine. See for example the abundant wild mushroom harvest witnessed by many last year and noted on this forum.

In Ireland beef and dairy farming remains largely based on a grassland system. The intensity of much agricultural production in Ireland remains much less than many other countries. Certainly some agricultural practice has become divorced from land based systems such as the use of feed lots in the US or other intensive systems of production such as pig rearing.

Btw I remembered your introductory post in this forum and I would suggest that your experience of the US Grainbasket regions may perhaps be colouring your overall impression of farming and I quote:

beans on one side, corn on the other, hogs and feeder-cattle enterprise on a scale you would not believe (our next-door neighbour, an architect, owns an 800-acre farm which is managed by ONE EMPLOYEE with the kind of robotic planters, harvesters etc. which would strike terror!

I also note that you stated you lived in the UK for an extended period, where again agricultural policy and practice varies considerably from that found in this country. I have experience of both and both the scale and intensity of production methods between Ireland and the UK are markedly different imo.

It intrigues me that in the subsequent 56 years very few scientifically-based comparative studies have been done on outcomes of populations fed by organic - versus conventionally-produced foods.

I am familiar with Rachel Carson's seminal book. As to studies of "on outcomes of populations fed by organic - versus conventionally-produced foods" - the difficulty lies in the absence of any discrete population of people who only eat organic foods. Many people eat some organic foods - however the absence of cohorts of individuals eating a solely organic diet to compare vis a vis with a statistically valid sample group eating only "conventional food" would make such studies extremely difficult to undertake.

Those of us who believe the bio-sphere and our species' position in it to be integrated on every level and experience that integration to be at crisis point will continue to believe that.

With a human population of approximately eight billion on the planet - I believe that it is now practically impossible for "our species' position ...to be integrated on every level" . We have missed that boat. There is no rural idyll or any pleasant paradise where the total mass of humanity can frolick with the fawns whilst grazing from the fruits carried by trees in the forests or even close.

Can things improve over our present situation? I hope so. And in the meantime each of us should do what we can to work with nature as much as is possible.

Capercaillie wrote: »

Unfortunately our grass based beef/dairy/sheep systems have largely exterminated a large proportion of traditional farmland species over last 50 years and particularly the last 20 years. Some generalist species have done well but the majority have lost out.

Do you mean farmland species of birds?
Tbh the amount of other types of wildlife with the exception of some birds hasn't been reduced imo. There are still plenty of foxes, hares, rabbits etc. In season I would still see signs of plenty of bank voles, Irish lizards and shrews. Most of these species live and feed in field margins and hedges and appear to be doing quite well imo. NPWS also reports that many of these animals remain abundant.

I do agree that grassland type has changed away from a mixed sward towards utility varieties such perennial rye grass. However for most mammals anyway this has not had a huge impact. From my own observations not all bird species have been impacted either with many birds continuing to breed successfully in hedges and field margins. I do believe wetland birds have taken a greater impact as well due to drainage. I have a maintained wetland area that I keep for wild fowl, with a very nice population of wild duck until these were largely wiped out by foxes last year....

Capercaillie wrote: »

Yes generalist like fox, rabbits doing well. Irish hare decreasing with intensification and pygmy shrew decreasing rapidly!

Plenty of shrews in this area tbh. The hare has become the favourite of a certain ethnic group more so imo. Saw two buck hares boxing in the middle of a busy road recently.

gozunda wrote: »

Plenty of shrews in this area tbh. The hare has become the favourite of a certain ethnic group more so imo. Saw two buck hares boxing in the middle of a busy road recently.

100 species of bees in Ireland, 50% in decline with a third in danger of extinction. Just an example of extinction crisis in Ireland....

wrangler wrote: »

Unless everyone is into conservation , there's no point of anyone bursting a gut at it.while the parks and wildlife are refusing to let authorities alleviate flooding, conservation is not going to gain any traction with farmers, if farmers don't support it more species will become extinct.
Most of us have enough to do to mind the animals we have, never mind the wildlife, Thousands of acres were sown down to trees with road construction, there should be enough habitats in that, like farmers they'll have to adapt

If pollinators become extinct, agriculture becomes extinct. We all become extinct. Tis alright though we will "adapt"...

Capercaillie wrote: »

If pollinators become extinct, agriculture becomes extinct. We all become extinct. Tis alright though we will "adapt"...

I get what you're trying to achieve, and admire you for it, but I think wrangler's point that wildlife will have to adapt would be my view too. I'm sure that down through the centuries, they have adapted to changes, and will do so again.

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I always find it a bit peculiar that there's no mention of urban Ireland in conversations like this. The exact same criticisms can be leveled at the urban landscapes, lawns cut bare, no other species or weed present, walls or foreign non flowering hedging and so forth. And there's an amazing lack of wildlife outside of pigeons, seagulls and rats to be seen.


Do as I say not as I do?

Don't think anybody would disagree with that. Most species of Irish gull in steep decline though.

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I always find it a bit peculiar that there's no mention of urban Ireland in conversations like this. The exact same criticisms can be leveled at the urban landscapes, lawns cut bare, no other species or weed present, walls or foreign non flowering hedging and so forth. And there's an amazing lack of wildlife outside of pigeons, seagulls and rats to be seen.


Do as I say not as I do?

Farming affects the vast majority of land, urbanizations effects are much much smaller and more localized

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Would you expect monkeys in the amazon to give up living in trees and be able to survive off grass instead?

It's not possible for so many species to change because it would mean changing so much of what makes them them.





Does no one think that the countryside would be very bleak without a diverse wildlife present or can everyone not get enough of cows and ryegrass?

You are making out that the whole country is covered in ryegrass, I'd wager it's in the minority by a good distance. As you said yourself about urban areas, ryegrass dominated areas are localised too.

farawaygrass wrote: »

Was at a kt meeting last summer and the guy talking made a good point. He said he doesn’t buy the narrative that hedges are being wiped out. He asked everyone to give a show of hands who planted hedges in the last few years, and most people rose their hand. Glas of course was s factor but even outside of that people seem to be more conscious. Even the talk on this thread is encouraging to hear how farmers are trying to do their bit. The years of the boom were probably bad as sites were cleared but it’s going the right way again.

Take into account hedge quality.

If you count all the grassy stumps, sprayed ditches and hedges cut back too tight every year as lost hedges, there'd be a fairly large decline.

Just because an area is or isn't being used intensively by farming doesn't decide whether or not it will support wildlife.
You have to consider it from the point of view of multiple species of birds, bees etc...

older by the day wrote: »

Well all I know the biggest destruction to wildlife habitat in my area was when the green party was in power. How many acres of middling land was reclaimed to try and avoid fines to the single farm payment. I had an inspection and every tree and bush we argued about. What "graze on" was used on ditchs that year. Even still my maps are covered with red lines every year.

u can't blame the green party for that .the dept of ag establish the geac specifications the irony that most of the areas deducted or penalised on most farms are the areas of most biodiversity so I am looking forward to having my eligible area reinstated and a significant bonus for maintaining them …….I need some unicorns to qualify for grazing though:D

Lano Lynn wrote: »

older by the day wrote: »

Well all I know the biggest destruction to wildlife habitat in my area was when the green party was in power. How many acres of middling land was reclaimed to try and avoid fines to the single farm payment. I had an inspection and every tree and bush we argued about. What "graze on" was used on ditchs that year. Even still my maps are covered with red lines every year.

u can't blame the green party for that .the dept of ag establish the geac specifications the irony that most of the areas deducted or penalised on most farms are the areas of most biodiversity so I am looking forward to having my eligible area reinstated and a significant bonus for maintaining them …….I need some unicorns to qualify for grazing though:D

You can blame the green party because they were holding up fianna fail in government at the time. And it was then the policy of fineing farmer was enforsed. I know the eu were going to fine the government but as the greens were in power rhey should have battled it. I'm as green as the average guy.

White Clover wrote: »

I get what you're trying to achieve, and admire you for it, but I think wrangler's point that wildlife will have to adapt would be my view too. I'm sure that down through the centuries, they have adapted to changes, and will do so again.

Its not that simple though - the current extinction rate is thousands of times above the natural one. Plus there is only so much "adapting" you can do when your habitat is gone, oceans full of plastic etc. Some species will always survive - but who wants to live in a world with just rats and cockroaches as company