Ear to the ground

27-10-2020 12:23am

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Surely the majority of farms surveyed wouldn’t have such constraints?
I acknowledge such constraints could theoretically affect the results - but would it be enough of a sample size to dramatically affect the outcome?
I don’t believe so...

It depends on which sector or why you're mining the information. The point I'm making is just because information comes from Source A or Source B doesn't automatically reflect it's reliability.

Dinzee Conlee · 27-10-2020 12:26am

Panch18 wrote: »

Well the vast majority of beef farmers are part time farmers who have off farm income, so don’t have to make a profit to put food on the table

There’s a big difference in mentality between a fella who has the food on the table and the mortgage paid before he looks at the farm and someone who has to live off the farm and repay loans

100% agree with your last statement...

But, that doesn’t mean the status quo around farm payments should be maintained purely to keep you living the life you like...

I know that’s a bit **** to say, but it’s the truth...

Panch18 · 27-10-2020 8:29am

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

100% agree with your last statement...

But, that doesn’t mean the status quo around farm payments should be maintained purely to keep you living the life you like...

I know that’s a bit **** to say, but it’s the truth...

I never said the status quo should be maintained

And anyway it hasn’t. This is a total misconception. Loads of fellas have seen massive cuts in their payments over the years, I know that ours has been cut by a lot of thousands. Then other lads who are young farmers etc have gotten payments.

Panch18 · 27-10-2020 8:34am

What is clear is that people, including on here, don’t want “farmers” any more, and a main contributing reason for it is that they have an unlimited supply of cheap food on their table, which nowadays they don’t even need to step outside their door, some clown will even come and stack their cupboards

What they want is grounds keepers who keep the countryside in a way that they THINK is environmentally friendly. To hell with whatever progressive farmers have done for the last 30-50 years

I’m going to create a new word to replace farmers in the dictionary - environmenters

_Brian · 27-10-2020 8:57am

Panch18 wrote: »

What is clear is that people, including on here, don’t want “farmers” any more, and a main contributing reason for it is that they have an unlimited supply of cheap food on their table, which nowadays they don’t even need to step outside their door, some clown will even come and stack their cupboards

What they want is grounds keepers who keep the countryside in a way that they THINK is environmentally friendly. To hell with whatever progressive farmers have done for the last 30-50 years

I’m going to create a new word to replace farmers in the dictionary - environmenters

There’s very few jobs that can go on forever without changing in one direction or the other. Particularly as you specifically say you can’t farm without these public supports, then there will be an increasing shift in the requirements to farm AND receive these supports.
I haven’t seen anyone here saying farming should or could be done away with. But how farming happens under cap payments is changing and will continue to change, Only the rate of change is the unknown, I would have it happen quicker than it currently is, but it will change in time irrespective of my or your desires.

wrangler · 27-10-2020 9:19am

_Brian wrote: »

There’s very few jobs that can go on forever without changing in one direction or the other. Particularly as you specifically say you can’t farm without these public supports, then there will be an increasing shift in the requirements to farm AND receive these supports.
I haven’t seen anyone here saying farming should or could be done away with. But how farming happens under cap payments is changing and will continue to change, Only the rate of change is the unknown, I would have it happen quicker than it currently is, but it will change in time irrespective of my or your desires.

Plenty of experts were saying the same as you pre the last CAP reform and see how that turned out.All they got was the ''greening'' Common sense will probably prevail again and idealists will have to wait another 8 - 10year

tanko · 27-10-2020 10:05am

Panch18 wrote: »

I never said the status quo should be maintained

And anyway it hasn’t. This is a total misconception. Loads of fellas have seen massive cuts in their payments over the years, I know that ours has been cut by a lot of thousands. Then other lads who are young farmers etc have gotten payments.

Oh dear, the cheek of those young farmers get some money off the grey haired pensioners with their 50K plus payments.
How dare they.

Panch18 · 27-10-2020 10:10am

tanko wrote: »

Oh dear, the cheek of those young farmers get some money off the grey haired pensioners with their 50K plus payments.
How dare they.

So do you have a contribution to make or will you be sticking with just the smart ass comment??

Panch18 · 27-10-2020 10:26am

_Brian wrote: »

There’s very few jobs that can go on forever without changing in one direction or the other. Particularly as you specifically say you can’t farm without these public supports, then there will be an increasing shift in the requirements to farm AND receive these supports.
I haven’t seen anyone here saying farming should or could be done away with. But how farming happens under cap payments is changing and will continue to change, Only the rate of change is the unknown, I would have it happen quicker than it currently is, but it will change in time irrespective of my or your desires.

seriously Brian are you for real

do you honestly think that farming hasn't changed "one direction or another" in the last 10, 20 or 50 years?

you make it sound like we are stuck in the dark ages and haven't moved, changed, adapted, adopted, innovated, progressed in that time

_Brian · 27-10-2020 11:08am

Panch18 wrote: »

seriously Brian are you for real

do you honestly think that farming hasn't changed "one direction or another" in the last 10, 20 or 50 years?

you make it sound like we are stuck in the dark ages and haven't moved, changed, adapted, adopted, innovated, progressed in that time

Sorry I made that point poorly.

There’s no reason to beleive that agriculture can only become More and more intensive, increasing chemical usage to squeeze literally the life out of the ground.
There’s no reason then next move isn’t to lessen intensity and move to more activity that supports biodiversity more and more.

gozunda · 27-10-2020 11:17am

Panch18 wrote: »

What is clear is that people, including on here, don’t want “farmers” any more, and a main contributing reason for it is that they have an unlimited supply of cheap food on their table, which nowadays they don’t even need to step outside their door, some clown will even come and stack their cupboards

What they want is grounds keepers who keep the countryside in a way that they THINK is environmentally friendly. To hell with whatever progressive farmers have done for the last 30-50 years

I’m going to create a new word to replace farmers in the dictionary - environmenters

True. I've seen direct comments on boards to the effect we can do without farming completely.

These do tend to be the more extreme end - but the belief that all food will soon be able to be synthesised out of factories seems to be an increasingly held fallacy. Not surprisingly it also includes a whole load of our anti-farming activists.

_Brian · 27-10-2020 11:34am

gozunda wrote: »

True. I've seen direct comments on boards to the effect we can do without farming completely.

These do tend to be the more extreme end - but the belief that all food will soon be able to be synthesised out of factories seems to be an increasingly held fallacy. Not surprisingly it also includes a whole load of our anti-animal activists.

Do actual adults actually believe that’s either possible or healthy for humans.

Panch18 · 27-10-2020 11:36am

_Brian wrote: »

Sorry I made that point poorly.

There’s no reason to beleive that agriculture can only become More and more intensive, increasing chemical usage to squeeze literally the life out of the ground.
There’s no reason then next move isn’t to lessen intensity and move to more activity that supports biodiversity more and more.

And i don't disagree with any of what you have written there regarding intensity etc because farmers have become slaves to Glanbia et al, Larry et al, and the fertiliser and chemical companies

However linking the CAP to 100% "Green" measures is definitely not the answer as it will literally finish full time farming in this country.

it is good farming practices that will make farming greener - not s##t farming. Things like biological farming, charcoal etc etc have a huge amount to contribute to farming in the next 30 years BUT this requires good farmers to innovate, adapt, experiment and drive these areas forward. It will not be done by lads who open the gate in April and don't look at their stock again till October

alps · 27-10-2020 11:40am

_Brian wrote: »

Do actual adults actually believe that’s either possible or healthy for humans.

Many do...and our colleges encourages.

Any food science course, set up or encouraged by the processor or retail industry teaches that food comes from a factory.

Kerry specifically promotes that it takes a raw material, makes it safe, fortifies it and turns it into wholesome and nourishing food...

It's important for these industries to deflect from the fact that food comes from a farm, or that it is at it's most nutritious at the point at where its grown..

gozunda · 27-10-2020 11:41am

_Brian wrote: »

Do actual adults actually believe that’s either possible or healthy for humans.

I first came across it on a detailed comment advocating exactly that on one of the farm protests threads. I've also seen it repeated since. Unfortunately a lot of kids and even some adults know little or anything about how food is produced.

Always found it interesting that there are those who generally dont see farms as places of work and production but instead demand that the countryside must meet some personal vision of a place where only bunnies and bambi romp peacefully together. Rarely see anyone advocating for factory owners or other industry to stop production and have a park with picnic tables or similar in its stead.

Panch18 · 27-10-2020 11:44am

alps wrote: »

Many do...and our colleges encourages.

Any food science course, set up or encouraged by the processor or retail industry teaches that food comes from a factory.

Kerry specifically promotes that it takes a raw material, makes it safe, fortifies it and turns it into wholesome and nourishing food...

It's important for these industries to deflect from the fact that food comes from a farm, or that it is at it's most nutritious at the point at where its grown..

Do you think Alps that farmers have the means to wrestle this narrative back and get the public back engaged with farming and food production?

NcdJd · 27-10-2020 11:54am

One of the top people in board bia suggested to the veg man I was speaking to yesterday that certain vegetables he's growing will not be very popular among the younger generation going forward due the time it takes in preparation. They done a study on it. Suggested that he get into the premade meals for some of these veg. This is the way it's going. If it's not cooked and ready in 30 minutes forget about it. That's what he was told.

endainoz · 27-10-2020 12:07pm

Quite an interesting discussion here, I'm a bit on the fence with regards to CAP payments. They are quite imbalanced when they come from output/stocking levels from a farm years ago although they have been adjusted slightly over the last few years. Our entitlements went down a bit and a friend of mine with 10 times the acreage actually had his entitlements go up but that was the way of adjusting it.

I do think payments should stay for the forceeable but I do agree with Brian about how payments should be changed based on what goes on in the farm. Local type schemes can absolutely work when the land area and type are taken into account. You only need to look at the massive success that is Burren life in north Clare. Using the animals to help the eco system, not go against it. It generates great press for the style of farming in the area. Now it does require a good bit of work, but the payments are worth it from anyone I've spoken to involved in it.

The first lockdown had a very positive affect on the area where I'm based, so many people around me started growing vegetables, my neighbor now has a chicken coop who would have never done anything like that in normal times. I think this kind of thing is the key here.

As was said earlier, people are so far removed from where their food comes from and this gap needs to be filled. I see a lot of organic and sustainable farmers often invite members of the public to see their farms and how they produce food. This needs to happen more, people will be happy to pay more for higher quality food. This can be proven with the shocking amount of food waste we have, because quite simply cheap food has no value.

_Brian · 27-10-2020 12:17pm

Panch18 wrote: »

And i don't disagree with any of what you have written there regarding intensity etc because farmers have become slaves to Glanbia et al, Larry et al, and the fertiliser and chemical companies

However linking the CAP to 100% "Green" measures is definitely not the answer as it will literally finish full time farming in this country.

it is good farming practices that will make farming greener - not s##t farming. Things like biological farming, charcoal etc etc have a huge amount to contribute to farming in the next 30 years BUT this requires good farmers to innovate, adapt, experiment and drive these areas forward. It will not be done by lads who open the gate in April and don't look at their stock again till October

It will finish farming as it stands today. But farming doesn’t exist as it did even just 10 years ago. It’s a fluid thing and needs to move with the needs of society.

Overproducing loss making products like beef, or dairy to be used as infant formula which displaces breast feeding, that’s not an actual need of society, it’s damaging to society.

zf0wqv9oemuasj · 27-10-2020 1:34pm

_Brian wrote: »

or dairy to be used as infant formula which displaces breast feeding, that’s not an actual need of society, it’s damaging to society.

There is a vital need in society for formula. One of the worst things happening today is the pressure on women to breast feed, breast feeding just is not for a a lot of women for various reasons and the pressure, stress and pain they go through to do it is terrible and is resulting in increased depression etc.

wrangler · 27-10-2020 1:38pm

Nadia Unsightly Fiddle wrote: »

There is a vital need in society for formula. One of the worst things happening today is the pressure on women to breast feed, breast feeding just is not for a a lot of women for various reasons and the pressure, stress and pain they go through to do it is terrible and is resulting in increased depression etc.

It's definitely not for men to be deciding anyway.
There should be freedom to choose without shaming those that choose not to

_Brian · 27-10-2020 1:58pm

Nadia Unsightly Fiddle wrote: »

There is a vital need in society for formula. One of the worst things happening today is the pressure on women to breast feed, breast feeding just is not for a a lot of women for various reasons and the pressure, stress and pain they go through to do it is terrible and is resulting in increased depression etc.

We are supplying vast amounts of formula into Aisia where unscrupulous busniess advertising is encouracing women wholesele to be like western society and drop breastfeeding and opt for the can insteasd..

I'm not talking about circumstances where there are barriers to breastfeeding, its not for every situation, I'm talking about the darker side of increasing the market just to generate revenue and profits while reducing infant health as a result.

27-10-2020 4:16pm

endainoz wrote: »

You only need to look at the massive success that is Burren life in north Clare.

Once a budget is of significant size forget about it. The vested interests sharks will circle in the water and bastardise any scheme. Part of the success of the Burren scheme is it's small budget (relative).

Birdnuts · 27-10-2020 9:44pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Once a budget is of significant size forget about it. The vested interests sharks will circle in the water and bastardise any scheme. Part of the success of the Burren scheme is it's small budget (relative).

If schemes are locally designed and results based - then its a win, win for everyone. The Burren and new HH scheme have proved that. Broad brush schemes like the old REPS didn't deleiver the goods and were very unfair to farmers on designated land when a cabal of vested interests re-directed money away from those folk to large intensive operators that got the same money for hanging useless ornaments off fence posts and the like. At least if 30% is now ring fenced for new agri/environmental schemes they can correct that historical wrong - of course that pre disposed some competence and goodwill on behalf of DAFM, which is something we can never take for granted. Its why I believe such schemes should be designed by affected famers working with expert ecologists and the like to deliver "real" results - if the Greens do one usefull thing in government it would be that.

27-10-2020 9:59pm

Birdnuts wrote: »

If schemes are locally designed and results based - then its a win, win for everyone. The Burren and new HH scheme have proved that. Broad brush schemes like the old REPS didn't deleiver the goods and were very unfair to farmers on designated land when a cabal of vested interests re-directed money away from those folk to large intensive operators that got the same money for hanging useless ornaments off fence posts and the like. Its why I believe such schemes should be designed by affected famers working with expert ecologists and the like to deliver "real" results

Tell you this much. I won't be participating in, aiding nor abetting anything to do with designations from this point onwards. Money be damned.

I am to lose control of my land for 30 magic beans for a failed policy that some other suit of some other thinking will spend elsewhere in the future while I retain the legal burdens.

When will environmentalists understand it isn't all about money. If you came to my area and asked farmers would they like to be well paid for designations, or no pay and no designations, they'd say remove the designations.

I see on Twitter a lad talking about his neighbours how they love being in scheme X, sure they do. Because they do not have another choice. They have no freedom of choice in regards their land.

Birdnuts wrote: »

At least if 30% is now ring fenced for new agri/environmental schemes they can correct that historical wrong - of course that pre disposed some competence and goodwill on behalf of DAFM, which is something we can never take for granted.

The comments, the substance and tone of them, I have heard directed at farmers from DAFM in meetings tells me there is no goodwill.

As for the 30%, the devil in the details will determine where that goes, as usual. We could have a situation where farmers are expected to do more for less. Certainly, the bar is being moved higher for receiving payments. It is obvious to me the intention is to move some bars impossibly high. If you must do X to get your ECO scheme, then what does X+ look like to get your REPS MK2, and what does X++ look like for your EIP - for example. It's just another barrier to entry and way to funnel money. Now, I haven't been following CAP this time, so the levels there may be incorrect.

Birdnuts · 27-10-2020 10:13pm

Deleted User wrote: »

They have no freedom of choice in regards their land.

.

Can you outline what you want to do with the land that has been designated?? Baring in mind that the likes of Spruce forestry and many other alternative uses are either loss making(without CAP money) or depend largely on the public purse to prop them up in other ways. The reason I mention the latter is cos much of the damage done to habitats in this country is funded and encouraged by the state. Whats wrong with re-directing that money to something more beneficial for willing farmers and society at large??

27-10-2020 10:42pm

Birdnuts wrote: »

Whats wrong with re-directing that money to something more beneficial for willing farmers and society at large??

There is everything wrong with it when there is a gun to that farmers head ie designations. It's like the bull**** tier 1 entry to GLAS, the farmer spreading a lot of fert got priority access, and so did the farmer with designated land. However if neither went into GLAS, only one had a legal burden on his land.

There is nothing wrong with it when it's a true partnership.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Can you outline what you want to do with the land that has been designated?? Baring in mind that the likes of Spruce forestry and many other alternative uses are either loss making(without CAP money) or depend largely on the public purse to prop them up in other ways. The reason I mention the latter is cos much of the damage done to habitats in this country is funded and encouraged by the state.

I'll limit what I'll say about myself, only that any activity I'm planning involves no chemical fertiliser, no herbicides, no pesticides, no quarrying, and no forestry of any description.

I have a number of plans in the works that'll earn me an income where I can post the CAP cheques back to Cavan. I'll also be able to provide employment, at least seasonally.

An example I have given before was printed in the Farming Independent where a man with a young family who gives sheepdog trials did not submit plans for a small tourist related business to planning as he knew full well the designations would mean failure of the application.

It's an affront to have to go cap in hand to absentee ecocolonial landlords to make a living for ones own family.

Until the gun is taken from the side of my head, Paisley will look like a pushover.

Birdnuts · 27-10-2020 10:59pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll limit what I'll say about myself, only that any activity I'm planning involves no chemical fertiliser, no herbicides, no pesticides, no quarrying, and no forestry of any description.

I have a number of plans in the works that'll earn me an income where I can post the CAP cheques back to Cavan. I'll also be able to provide employment, at least seasonally.

An example I have given before was printed in the Farming Independent where a man with a young family who gives sheepdog trials did not submit plans for a small tourist related business to planning as he knew full well the designations would mean failure of the application.

It's an affront to have to go cap in hand to absentee ecocolonial landlords to make a living for ones own family.

Until the gun is taken from the side of my head, Paisley will look like a pushover.

I have a share myself in an SAC commonage in North Mayo - I've no time myself for silly stuff in terms of restrictions to the likes of putting in some roadside fencing or crush/handling facilities. Again i strongly believe the main problems here are the ongoing poor performance of the DAFM in how these things are administered.

27-10-2020 11:35pm

Birdnuts wrote: »

I have a share myself in an SAC commonage in North Mayo - I've no time myself for silly stuff in terms of restrictions to the likes of putting in some roadside fencing or crush/handling facilities. Again i strongly believe the main problems here are the ongoing poor performance of the DAFM in how these things are administered.

Nope, the failed policy of designations, attaching legal burdens to peoples lands for no benefit to anyone which could bring them before the courts is the problem.

NcdJd · 29-10-2020 10:13pm

The man from Connemara talking about his bees i thought was very interesting. Thought Darragh wasn't very engaging with the questions he was asking him though.

Capercaillie · 30-10-2020 1:07pm

NcdJd wrote: »

The man from Connemara talking about his bees i thought was very interesting. Thought Darragh wasn't very engaging with the questions he was asking him though.

He was a cool eccentric kind of fellow. Slept on a bed over the hives, sounds kind of relaxing!

foxy farmer · 01-11-2020 4:31pm

Jjameson wrote: »

He was very interesting but the sole blame for Algae growth in the water in west cork was ridiculous.

The algal growth is going on with yrs. 3 villages discharging untreated sewage into the bay and a premises discharging 150m3 of treated wastewater 5 days a week. The EPA prosecuted them recently because the treatment plant wasn't able to cater for the volume of effluent with the result it was being discharged without full treatment. God only knows how long that was going on.
As regards agricultural pollution that's there too.

Say my name · 01-11-2020 4:35pm

Jjameson wrote: »

He was very interesting but the sole blame for Algae growth in the water in west cork being blamed on dairy farming was ridiculous. This girl needs a public schooling on the facts.

Closer to home Duncannon is another interesting one.
There's a stream that exits at the far end of the strand.
So far all the publicised attention seems to me to be from experts telling and showing their work of fencing off access on the grassland it passes through.
I haven't seen any publicised work or pictures tweeted of any attention paid to where it goes past caravan parks and holiday homes.

I suppose everyone wants a quiet easy life..

01-11-2020 7:39pm

Jjameson wrote: »

He was very interesting but the sole blame for Algae growth in the water in west cork being blamed on dairy farming was ridiculous. This girl needs a public schooling on the facts.

I only watched it today, to be fair at the start of the piece she did talk briefly about human sewage. The NUIG people also, for whatever worth their methodology is.

alps · 01-11-2020 8:30pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I only watched it today, to be fair at the start of the piece she did talk briefly about human sewage. The NUIG people also, for whatever worth their methodology is.

They maintain that they can determine in the test of the algae whether the nutrients come from human or agricultural waste.

They maintain the majority of the problem in Courtmacsherry is agricultural..

Hard to mount a viable defence without sience showing otherwise..

Water John · 01-11-2020 9:22pm

Think there is a a handy bit of tillage down there also.

01-11-2020 9:27pm

alps wrote: »

They maintain that they can determine in the test of the algae whether the nutrients come from human or agricultural waste.

They maintain the majority of the problem in Courtmacsherry is agricultural..

Hard to mount a viable defence without sience showing otherwise..

You're not telling me anything new here

I generally believe in science, however it seems a problem in that field that they cannot see they may be wrong at time or use methods that may be wrong. Of course, they may also be right.

If I were to question anything out of it it would be at least two scenes of **** being hosed off concrete. Creates an impression.

_Brian · 01-11-2020 9:35pm

alps wrote: »

They maintain that they can determine in the test of the algae whether the nutrients come from human or agricultural waste.

They maintain the majority of the problem in Courtmacsherry is agricultural..

Hard to mount a viable defence without sience showing otherwise..

This is the crux of the situation.
If they have a reliable method to determine this are people going to say they only accept the science that fits their narrative. We can’t just run an echo chamber where someone says look at the sewage problem, everyone nods and ignore the science that says otherwise.

Same for ETTG, it can’t just run articles blowing smoke up the holes of farmers because we all know there are problems in farming that need addressing.

Mooooo · 01-11-2020 9:41pm

The lad she was talking to about that said they can sometimes, not all the time. Ella moved on fast enough when that was said imo. Kingston spoke well. The piece was ok and as said better to be part of the conversation than the whole thing splitting with sides pointing fingers from all angles and nothing happening or the hammer falling too hard on one side

Say my name · 01-11-2020 9:56pm

_Brian wrote: »

This is the crux of the situation.
If they have a reliable method to determine this are people going to say they only accept the science that fits their narrative. We can’t just run an echo chamber where someone says look at the sewage problem, everyone nods and ignore the science that says otherwise.

What's the bets it's coliforms that's being recorded and it's being put on livestock.
Science and the epa are not good bedfellows.
Weren't they shown up by lying about methane accounting emissions there recently.

The situation in Duncannon has been going on for forty years and the answer is always they don't know what the problem is. They know it's faecal but they can't solve it.
So now they have EU money to investigate the problem. Hence a research group set up and there's tweets about fences going up.

I suspect it's similar in Cork. The thing that connects both is a large holidaying community. But humans don't sh1t.

The only place where sewage is being discussed is here.
It's farmland is to blame on epa and council news.
It's the easy target. Try going into a caravan park with buried pipes and accusing the tourists and see what happens?

80sDiesel · 01-11-2020 10:25pm

Enjoyed the episode. Happened to watch it with my mum who doesn’t quite understand why I bought some upland meadows to restore. Explaining the intensification of farming she began to understand why I don’t have any animals and don’t add fert as I want to reduce the fertility of the land to enable the reintroduction of wildflowers and native grasses to recreate the species rich upland hay meadows of the past.

Say my name · 01-11-2020 10:29pm

80sDiesel wrote: »

Enjoyed the episode. Happened to watch it with my mum who doesn’t quite understand why I bought some upland meadows to restore. Explaining the intensification of farming she began to understand why I don’t have any animals and don’t add fert as I want to reduce the fertility of the land to enable the reintroduction of wildflowers and native grasses to recreate the species rich upland hay meadows of the past.

How's that going?

foxy farmer · 01-11-2020 10:50pm

For years you had 3 villages discharging raw sewage into the Courtmacsherry estuary. The council got away with it. The population in all 3 villages grew massively in the last 20 yrs. The EPA brought out a report a few yrs back where towns and villages were named for pollution. In the last few yrs 2 treatment plants have been built handling the 3 villages. The company that was prosecuted also put up a massive new treatment plant. So the authorities figure that 2 sources have been rectified. That leaves only one.
Europe is going after water quality. Derogation limits will go if things don't improve. They'll probably go in any case. Might be no bad thing either. Nitrate limits slurry deadlines and closed season mean fook all to some lads. Theyll spend 40k on tankers and attachments when they should really be spending it on storage.
I'll say no more. And yes there are issues on my own farm that could do with improvement.

Say my name · 01-11-2020 11:35pm

For farmers in derogation, the dept measure their slurry tanks to see if they have adequate storage.

alps · 02-11-2020 12:34am

Say my name wrote: »

For farmers in derogation, the dept measure their slurry tanks to see if they have adequate storage.

They don't...

Farmers make a declaration when applying for a derogation that they have tanks of specific sizes and capacity..

There is no defence for those who have given false declarations...

Slurry storage was part and parcel of proper milk expansion, and more than derogation farmers are to blame here....only the derogation lads have signed the document.

Mooooo · 02-11-2020 1:19am

Nitrates inspections measure all tanks and areas where they consider anything should be collected from. Tis the eye in the sky could be doing the measuring soon anyway.
Also, well for me anyway, I assume there are more, some are at a stage were investment is gonna be required to upgrade farmyards and in doing so most would attempt to future proof but by aiming to build what they may perceive to be the stocking rate they can manage but if dero goes you could end up paying for extra cubicles/ tanks, etc with less cows to use them or indeed pay for them. Edit forgot my point! Basically it is frustrating trying to plan for the next 20 /30 years when in my cases investment will be required soon. Also In a sense or "low cost" advantage is already hemmed in by having the same capital costs as our European neighbours even tho cows may be only in them for 4 months here as opposed to 10 or 12 months on the continent

wrangler · 02-11-2020 9:24am

Mooooo wrote: »

Nitrates inspections measure all tanks and areas where they consider anything should be collected from. Tis the eye in the sky could be doing the measuring soon anyway.
Also, well for me anyway, I assume there are more, some are at a stage were investment is gonna be required to upgrade farmyards and in doing so most would attempt to future proof but by aiming to build what they may perceive to be the stocking rate they can manage but if dero goes you could end up paying for extra cubicles/ tanks, etc with less cows to use them or indeed pay for them. Edit forgot my point! Basically it is frustrating trying to plan for the next 20 /30 years when in my cases investment will be required soon. Also In a sense or "low cost" advantage is already hemmed in by having the same capital costs as our European neighbours even tho cows may be only in them for 4 months here as opposed to 10 or 12 months on the continent

It was always flagged that dero could be dropped, don't think it was ever wise to plan for it being there forever
I saw a farmer out in all the rain yesterday with an umbilical, there's wrong ones everywhere not just in industry/town sewerage

alps · 02-11-2020 9:53am

wrangler wrote: »

It was always flagged that dero could be dropped, don't think it was ever wise to plan for it being there forever
I saw a farmer out in all the rain yesterday with an umbilical, there's wrong ones everywhere not just in industry/town sewerage

Derogation works..

There is absolutely no correlation between water quality issues and derogation farms..

The issue is farmers doing the b####x like you describe above and farmers not having adequate slurry storage..

It's a real and significant issue for derogation farms that it is perceived that removing the derogation can in some way fix the issue of the guys who have utter disregard for the environment and their fellow farmers.

I'm coming to the view that either expanding dairy farms, or those above a certain number, should have to apply for certification which would include an engineers report of storage facilities and capacities.

This would be standard practice across most of Europe where in fact you would have to get permission from the local council to increase numbers..

The current carry on is going to destroy many dairy farms if the derogation gets pulled as a result.

The majority of farms supplying Carbery for instance are in derogation. There physically will not be enough land to cater for all if it gets withdrawn. The consequences across all farming operations will be felt, if these derogation lads are suddenly in the market for rented ground.

Mooooo · 02-11-2020 10:14am

wrangler wrote: »

It was always flagged that dero could be dropped, don't think it was ever wise to plan for it being there forever
I saw a farmer out in all the rain yesterday with an umbilical, there's wrong ones everywhere not just in industry/town sewerage

My point was in order for me to make an income and business viable going forward I have to invest, and if the rug is pulled from under me will Europe pay the bank, by fcuk they will. And its partly that situation that has lads holding out in facilities not up to scratch as they fear for the future. Im not just talking of for expansion,There are a lot of buildings in the country built years ago that will have to be replaced and and for people whose sole income is from the farm doing that will be based on achieving certain sales etc. Environmental payments aren't going to cover the loss in income

_Brian · 02-11-2020 1:16pm

alps wrote: »

Derogation works..

There is absolutely no correlation between water quality issues and derogation farms..

The issue is farmers doing the b####x like you describe above and farmers not having adequate slurry storage..

It's a real and significant issue for derogation farms that it is perceived that removing the derogation can in some way fix the issue of the guys who have utter disregard for the environment and their fellow farmers.

I'm coming to the view that either expanding dairy farms, or those above a certain number, should have to apply for certification which would include an engineers report of storage facilities and capacities.

This would be standard practice across most of Europe where in fact you would have to get permission from the local council to increase numbers..

The current carry on is going to destroy many dairy farms if the derogation gets pulled as a result.

The majority of farms supplying Carbery for instance are in derogation. There physically will not be enough land to cater for all if it gets withdrawn. The consequences across all farming operations will be felt, if these derogation lads are suddenly in the market for rented ground.

Would aN AD plant not be a good solution in any area like this ??

Ear to the ground

Comments