why isent half of the west not a forest?

afatbollix

I use the forests for a bit of rallying and me and the driver were talking that at least half of the land in mayo is not used for farming and is just sitting there...

Why not just plant a huge amount of forests on it and it will will mean money at the end? maybe the goverment should buy it up and plant them... might help with that co2 count that we are paying millions into each year due to not meeting our targets...

any one elses thoughts?

Taltos

Great idea - but lets go for natural wood - not the pines from abroad that is everywhere these days.

TheInquisitor

Proper oak forests would be class!
Only take

40 years

Johnnyr

You are probably referring to peat areas, which are more or less located west of Crossmolina.

This type of land is nutrient impoverished. It has difficulty in maintaining the natural vegetation in areas, so these sites will not be able to sustain a forest without repeat applications of fertiliser. The economics of such practices in this era would be questionable.

These peat areas are valuable ecosystems and do not cope well with fertiliser applications. As the peat has a low mineral/clay content, nutrients will not bind to the peat and end up leeching from the site into waterways. As Mayo has many sensitive waterways this could cause a lot of damage to local ecosystems.

Afforestation in Ireland is regulated by the Forest Service. Approval to plant forests on peats is very unlikely now. Coillte are actually removing forests from some peat sites and allowing the original ecosystem to reinstate itself.

As for being good for carbon accumulation, this is not certain. When the trees are planted the peat has to be drained, this lowers the water table, allowing oxygen into the peat. Then the peat starts to decompose releasing greenhouse gases. These areas, if planted, could become a source instead of a sink.

As for oak forests, not a chance. The most likely broadleaf species to survive would be birch. These areas are usually planted with Sitka spruce or lodgepole pine.

The_Conductor

If you accept that forestry in the area can only be conducted on an aesthetic and environmental rather than a commercial basis- certainly the possibility for large scale afforestation/reafforestation does exist.

As alluded to above- hardy species such as birch would predominate at least initially- but there is no reason that further down the road other native species possibly even the likes of Scots Pine, could not play a part in the species mix

The big problem with afforestation in the area (totally aside from the monocultures of Sitka Spruce) is a reluctance on the part of land owners to countenance forestry on anything but the very worst of sites- as forestry is perceived as a 'worst case scenario'. When forestry does not thrive on these poor, exposed, often elevated sites- it feeds back into the psyche- it didn't do well there- so they proved their point. Its frustrating in the extreme for anyone trying to sell forestry as a viable economic crop.......

Vis-a-vis the use of forestry as a carbon sink- when viewed on a long term basis- forestry is in fact a carbon neutral enterprise (the wood generated will eventually decompose and release its CO2 back into the environment again). In the short term- the afforestation of cut-away bog necessitates massive drainage, and relief exercises, and depending on the spp. being planted, scarification etc. Environmentalists often react with fury when they see site preparation techniques (totally aside from the fact that bogs and peatlands are not a natural environment, but in fact the result of mans activity on the land).

It really can often appear to be a case of you can't win, no matter what you do.......