Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ear to the ground

Options
1…5681011

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    _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


  • Options
    #213
    _Brian
    Registered Users Posts: 18,492 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    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.


  • Options
    #214
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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.


  • Options
    #215
    _Brian
    Registered Users Posts: 18,492 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    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.


  • Options
    #216
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    _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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    alps
    Registered Users Posts: 4,941 ✭✭✭alps


    _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..


  • Options
    #218
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    _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.


  • Options
    #219
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    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?


  • Options
    #220
    NcdJd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 994 ✭✭✭NcdJd


    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.


  • Options
    #221
    endainoz
    Registered Users Posts: 4,742 ✭✭✭endainoz


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    _Brian
    Registered Users Posts: 18,492 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    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.


  • Options
    #223
    zf0wqv9oemuasj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 117 ✭✭zf0wqv9oemuasj


    _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.


  • Options
    #224
    wrangler
    Registered Users Posts: 11,066 ✭✭✭✭wrangler


    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


  • Options
    #225
    _Brian
    Registered Users Posts: 18,492 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    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.


  • Options
    #226
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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).


  • Options
    #227
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,645 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    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.


  • Options
    #228
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #229
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,645 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    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??


  • Options
    #230
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #231
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,645 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #233
    NcdJd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 994 ✭✭✭NcdJd


    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.


  • Options
    #234
    Capercaillie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Capercaillie


    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!


  • Options
    #235
    Jjameson
    Registered Users Posts: 2,745 ✭✭✭Jjameson


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

    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.


  • Options
    #236
    foxy farmer
    Registered Users Posts: 3,194 ✭✭✭foxy farmer


    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.


  • Options
    #237
    Say my name
    Registered Users Posts: 11,133 ✭✭✭✭Say my name


    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..


  • Options
    #238
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #239
    alps
    Registered Users Posts: 4,941 ✭✭✭alps


    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..


  • Options
    #240
    Jjameson
    Registered Users Posts: 2,745 ✭✭✭Jjameson


    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..

    Science will prove otherwise. Pasture has proven to leech a fraction of the nutrients into water courses that intensive tillage does. And a I would wager science will also prove that well managed pasture releases less than direct sewage pipelines.

    Where are the sustainability discussions about what is going into sewage systems, and what is coming out?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,144 ✭✭✭✭Water John


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


Advertisement