Arla

[Henarar]

Not for a second but there has to be balance to discussion on here and that’s the mod’s job? There are boundaries in all social media why is it different here?

TFF has rules if you think someone has broke them there is a report button

 

[dinderleat]

Thats not the impression I get after reading a farmers weekly article.

Not all the information is out there yet as members are yet to be informed at member meetings but I’m sure this isn’t the case.

 

[farmer on a bike]

For the benefit of all the Arla farmers reading this thread please do not get confused by the ill informed comments on here.
Sequestration is not included in the Arla SIM and carbon foot printing, therefore you are not transferring or loosing any carbon credits in any currently recognised form. Anyone saying otherwise does not know what they are talking about.

 

[Birdlipper]

I am not an Arla supplier but I agree with @Bald Rick. It stinks. I think that this will end the same way as assurance. It was supposed to offer a premium but has ended mandatory. I was in the supermarket the other day. President and Kerrygold butter were both more expensive than Country life and Lurpak. Are President and Kerrygold red tractor ? My arse they are. The same will go for carbon assets. It will be mandatory with no premium for Arla suppliers or anyone else. I think it is theft and blackmail. A big mistake for Arla to go down this route. Farmers carbon assets should be theirs to do with what they like not traded by the milk buyers. I don't think farmers realise how much these assets are worth. I was speaking to my agent the other day and he said companies are offering £1000+ per hectare per year index linked for 30 yrs to take land out of agricultural production, just to get the carbon credits. He told me not to do anything with my grassland as that is rising all the time.
I wish Arla well but I fear the worst.

Not quite sure I understand a complaint that French President butter and Irish Kerrygold butter dont have red tractor logos. Suspect that would really get some posters on here into orbit?

 

[DaveGrohl]

according to the Arla article above, 500m euro, between 8500 farmers per year.
So that's a cool £50k/year per producer from now through to 2030

Having now read that press release it seems quite clear that the 500m euro is to come out of the pool price in some way. Or is there some hidden meaning in there somewhere? Earmarked seems clear enough doesn’t it?

 

[DaveGrohl]

Not quite sure I understand a complaint that French President butter and Irish Kerrygold butter dont have red tractor logos. Suspect that would really get some posters on here into orbit?

Seems the comment was about them being more expensive without being RT assured, highlighting the mythical RT premium effect.

 

[vantage]

I totally agree and that is why, in my opinion, working towards GWP* and the inclusion of sequestration in carbon auditing is an important area for Arla to lead on.

Contacted TFF as myself to raise concerns over the direction of this thread. Never heard a chirp back.

With everything going on in the Middle East and uncertainty how China will re-enter the market. Some European currencies directly affecting our milk price. To come on here and see all the mud slinging at my milk buyer is disheartening.

As a first generation dairy farmer with a young family Arla has allowed my wee business to establish. At this very moment in time the price pressure has pushed cash flow unlike before. What they are currently doing will realign that.

Lucky us dairy farmers are that resilient mental health never comes into it.

But hey ho @Bald Rick let's let a public forum be unanswerable to it members.

For the benefit of all the Arla farmers reading this thread please do not get confused by the ill informed comments on here.
Sequestration is not included in the Arla SIM and carbon foot printing, therefore you are not transferring or loosing any carbon credits in any currently recognised form. Anyone saying otherwise does not know what they are talking about.

Well I’ve just got back from my district meeting and want to say what a great meeting it was. Some robust questioning, answered in a very good way by Graham and Paul, I’m confident with the direction of travel, a special mention for @farmer on a bike , who is doing great work on our behalf in questioning the GWP100, GWP* issue, plus the commercial realities.

 

[delilah]

For the benefit of all the Arla farmers reading this thread please do not get confused by the ill informed comments on here.
Sequestration is not included in the Arla SIM and carbon foot printing, therefore you are not transferring or loosing any carbon credits in any currently recognised form. Anyone saying otherwise does not know what they are talking about.

This is my understanding then, please correct me where I have it wrong. We are all here to learn, and because we have a common interest.

Whilst studiously (and sensibly) avoiding use of the word, Arla are putting 'regenerative' into a dairy context. Reduced fert, more biodiversity, healthy feet on cows that last longer, etc etc. All of which is your business and no-one else's. We may or may not have concerns that you are pitting one producer against another, and that the admin will push the smaller producer a step closer to jumping ship, but that's for you and your producers to weigh up.

The concern is over the carbon. It is a valid concern, because as a major player what Arla work to will influence the rest of the industry. There remain some key questions unanswered, my three key ones:

- Why are you working to GWP100 ? Who is holding a gun to your head ?

- Why are you putting the carbon into the same tank as the milk ? If you wish to see producers get an income from their carbon, why not provide them with an additional tank to put their carbon into, for them to sell as a seperate commodity ?

- What happens to the multi-enterprise farm when the buyers of their commodities collectively want more carbon than they have ?

As said, here to learn.

 

[delilah]

And for anyone who thinks that there is no urgency in Arla adopting GWP* :

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls...all-for-evidence/outcome/summary-of-responses

Defra considers that methane suppressing feed products are an essential tool to decarbonise the agricultural sector. We are committed to working with industry to stimulate the market and encourage uptake of these products.

That paper Arla released two days ago, it fully supports this move. All of the damage is at the farm level. Your stance, not the lentil knitters or the Government. Arla's. You are bringing all of this onto yourselves. Feed additives, methane masks and all the rest of it.

And you think that non Arla members shouldn't be taking a view on any of this ? Nah.

 

[dinderleat]

This is my understanding then, please correct me where I have it wrong. We are all here to learn, and because we have a common interest.

Whilst studiously (and sensibly) avoiding use of the word, Arla are putting 'regenerative' into a dairy context. Reduced fert, more biodiversity, healthy feet on cows that last longer, etc etc. All of which is your business and no-one else's. We may or may not have concerns that you are pitting one producer against another, and that the admin will push the smaller producer a step closer to jumping ship, but that's for you and your producers to weigh up.

The concern is over the carbon. It is a valid concern, because as a major player what Arla work to will influence the rest of the industry. There remain some key questions unanswered, my three key ones:

- Why are you working to GWP100 ? Who is holding a gun to your head ?

- Why are you putting the carbon into the same tank as the milk ? If you wish to see producers get an income from their carbon, why not provide them with an additional tank to put their carbon into, for them to sell as a seperate commodity ?

- What happens to the multi-enterprise farm when the buyers of their commodities collectively want more carbon than they have ?

As said, here to learn.

Are they rhetorical questions ……..

 

[willyorkshire]

Are they rhetorical questions ……..

Saw an Arla tanker yesterday. Had 'owned by farmers' written on it....

 

[buffalo_soldier]

This is my understanding then, please correct me where I have it wrong. We are all here to learn, and because we have a common interest.

Whilst studiously (and sensibly) avoiding use of the word, Arla are putting 'regenerative' into a dairy context. Reduced fert, more biodiversity, healthy feet on cows that last longer, etc etc. All of which is your business and no-one else's. We may or may not have concerns that you are pitting one producer against another, and that the admin will push the smaller producer a step closer to jumping ship, but that's for you and your producers to weigh up.

The concern is over the carbon. It is a valid concern, because as a major player what Arla work to will influence the rest of the industry. There remain some key questions unanswered, my three key ones:

- Why are you working to GWP100 ? Who is holding a gun to your head ?

- Why are you putting the carbon into the same tank as the milk ? If you wish to see producers get an income from their carbon, why not provide them with an additional tank to put their carbon into, for them to sell as a seperate commodity ?

- What happens to the multi-enterprise farm when the buyers of their commodities collectively want more carbon than they have ?

As said, here to learn.

I'm fairly sure those questions above have been answered, in detail, several times. There comes a point where you're just being obtuse im afraid.

I certainly understand the scenario better now, just a shame i dont have time for meetings atm.

 

[soapsud]

This is my understanding then, please correct me where I have it wrong. We are all here to learn, and because we have a common interest.

Whilst studiously (and sensibly) avoiding use of the word, Arla are putting 'regenerative' into a dairy context. Reduced fert, more biodiversity, healthy feet on cows that last longer, etc etc. All of which is your business and no-one else's. We may or may not have concerns that you are pitting one producer against another, and that the admin will push the smaller producer a step closer to jumping ship, but that's for you and your producers to weigh up.

The concern is over the carbon. It is a valid concern, because as a major player what Arla work to will influence the rest of the industry. There remain some key questions unanswered, my three key ones:

- Why are you working to GWP100 ? Who is holding a gun to your head ?

- Why are you putting the carbon into the same tank as the milk ? If you wish to see producers get an income from their carbon, why not provide them with an additional tank to put their carbon into, for them to sell as a seperate commodity ?

- What happens to the multi-enterprise farm when the buyers of their commodities collectively want more carbon than they have ?

As said, here to learn.

You're jumping the gun. Methane and carbon mitigations come later. First things first - Arla are making dairying more profitable with data driven management techniques.

How milk buyers use those measurable improvements maybe of wider concern but I'd say we outsiders must be patient for the mo'.

I say this from the very lowest rung of the farming ladder - sheep, on a thread for farmers on the very highest rung.

 

[Henarar]

I say this from the very lowest rung of the farming ladder - sheep, on a thread for farmers on the very highest rung.

I will get the
Mind I think suck cow farmers could be tared with the same brush

 

[BM2016]

The biggest Issue I have with the fact our sequestration isnt taken into account is that we are negatively impacted quite largely on the enteric fermentation for having older extensive permanent pasture despite the fact of having near 6% organic matter in the soils

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Yes, quite an important part of the MBA, I have just completed.

So you are more than capable of writing up a similar report to the British Airways one, for dairy farmers on how quickly you can reach net zero which only requires adoption of technology/ transport that does not use fossil fuels as it becomes available and addressing your scope 3 emissions by putting pressure on your feed and fert suppliers.

You can easily brush aside methane as being part of the natural cycle, not contributing to climate change with insufficient evidence on how much methane from a ruminant actually reaches the atmosphere.
That would be entirely valid unlike the airlines complete disregard of the effect of fuel particles and water vapour left high in the atmosphere.

I know you will find that laughable, but it would be a reasonable place to start.

 

[SilliamWhale]

The biggest Issue I have with the fact our sequestration isnt taken into account is that we are negatively impacted quite largely on the enteric fermentation for having older extensive permanent pasture despite the fact of having near 6% organic matter in the soils

Point of difference though I don't think arable farmers are paid for sequestration either, they are paid for flow. Ie carbon they may have emitted growing a crop but have "managed" a way not to. Not sure how mature the actual sequestration market is

 

[Jackov Altraids]

For the benefit of all the Arla farmers reading this thread please do not get confused by the ill informed comments on here.
Sequestration is not included in the Arla SIM and carbon foot printing, therefore you are not transferring or loosing any carbon credits in any currently recognised form. Anyone saying otherwise does not know what they are talking about.

One final pair of questions from me.
Thanks for indulging me.

I have seen many sustainable questionnaires and assessments, and have had first hand experience of this becoming part of a supermarket contract.
They have all wanted to know about all my environmental assets. Hedges, trees, ponds, scrub etc. as well as crops/grassland.
So have Arla asked for this too?

Because if
"Sequestration is not included in the Arla SIM and carbon foot printing, therefore you are not transferring or loosing any carbon credits in any currently recognised form."

why do they need any information beyond your feed, fuel and energy inputs?

 

[BM2016]

Point of difference though I don't think arable farmers are paid for sequestration either, they are paid for flow. Ie carbon they may have emitted growing a crop but have "managed" a way not to. Not sure how mature the actual sequestration market is

Unless they are on a no till I doubt they would be sequesting a great deal as they will be releasing it twice a season?

 

[SilliamWhale]

Unless they are on a no till I doubt they would be sequesting a great deal as they will be releasing it twice a season?

Yes. And ironically if you are adding fym that's a positive! And cover crops