SWS forestry...

crackcrack30

Was talking to these at the tullamore show on sunday and the chap sounded eager and helpfull in fairness to him, I,m thinking of planting off a hillside which is unsuitable for access (walking), machinery, and herding, I'm thinking of possibly 20-30 acres of hillside and possibly 10-18 acres more of rushy bottoms (in 3 to 6 acre plots) which i mentioned some of here last week..................
The question is are there any of these contracting agencies that are better or more helpfull than others? I know there are some issues I will have with regards to ESB over head lines and an archology monument which i will have to give a wide berth to, so this will lead to fragmention of the forestry and land leading to more fencing ect and possibly more initial planning ............... tanx for any replies - located in the midwest area.

The_Conductor

crackcrack30 wrote: »

Was talking to these at the tullamore show on sunday and the chap sounded eager and helpfull in fairness to him, I,m thinking of planting off a hillside which is unsuitable for access (walking), machinery, and herding, I'm thinking of possibly 20-30 acres of hillside and possibly 10-18 acres more of rushy bottoms (in 3 to 6 acre plots) which i mentioned some of here last week..................
The question is are there any of these contracting agencies that are better or more helpfull than others? I know there are some issues I will have with regards to ESB over head lines and an archology monument which i will have to give a wide berth to, so this will lead to fragmention of the forestry and land leading to more fencing ect and possibly more initial planning ............... tanx for any replies - located in the midwest area.

Different people have had different experiences with different companies and cooperatives- there isn't a single one that stands out as better or worse than others- they'd be out of business pretty quickly if this were the case.

Normally the property would be afforested in exchange for the establishment grants- however this would normally be a regular site, without the many obstacles that you're talking of.......

What are you attempting to do with your forestry? Establish an alternate revenue stream, with coppicing etc? Or establish a commercial forestry crop- on a 35-40 year rotation?

The intended species being planted, and what you intend to use them for- will have as much significance when choosing a contractor/company/cooperative to go with- as will anything else.

Also- just as an aside- why are you proposing to afforest 20-30 acres of bare hillside? I don't know the site in question- but the throwaway comment is suggestive of a statement along the lines of- its useless for anything else, lets chuck some trees on it........ Its also going to be far from ideal for forestry.........

You really need to get o/s maps, get all the exclusions (archaelogical sites, overhead lines, streams/rivers etc) marked in, and once you have a reliable site map- have a forester look at it, and give you an honest opinion with hard information in front of him/her.

foundation10

I see some work done by SWS locally I can say that the fencing products used by them is the cheapest of wire and posts compared to some of the others I see in the locality

crackcrack30

Revenue, revenue, revenue and future tinnings ect for fire wood and of course end crop if im around...................divercification.
At twenty years I could thin and start my copicing plot on some of the broadleaf, with the remaining conifer left for a cash crop
The hillside is being used as a suclar farm at the moment but is high and awkward and begining to overgrow wild due to unsuitibility for machinery.
I'd still be leaving 80 acres for farming in the area.
There is plenty of mature forestry in the general location <10k and most of it is on hillside and looks (to me) to be healthy?

Foundation-10 ....... Thanks for the heads up on the fencing...................

F.D

crackcrack30 wrote: »

Revenue, revenue, revenue and future tinnings ect for fire wood and of course end crop if im around...................divercification.


Wont be much revenue after the first cycle so in 40 years time if you or who ever follows you will have to look at the next round of trees growing for nothing, and look at the lump sum received from the clearfell dissapearing with replanting, maintenence etc, maybe if you had 500 acres planted at different stages it would work with money coming in a different stages as for all of these farm forests scattered everywhere, i'm not sure,
Did you ask this question to any of the foresters would be interested in there response

If your on a hill did you look into a wind turbine or anything, i know very little about them but might be an option

crackcrack30

(Re. 40 years time) Are the people clearfelling now not eligible for grants if they decide to plant again?


P.S conifer making 35 euro a tonne at the moment it pays to wait for the market to fell.

The_Conductor

crackcrack30 wrote: »

(Re. 40 years time) Are the people clearfelling now not eligible for grants if they decide to plant again?

If you clearfell- you never ever were eligible for grants to plant again.......
Its an afforestation grant- to afforest land not currently under forestry.
You sign a binding contract to keep the land forested in perpetuity- you cannot decide to clearfell and then plant pasture- just cause beef is doing good (as an example). You are obliged to reafforest after clearfelling- at your own cost.

In certain limited circumstances, you may qualify for a reconstitution grant (such as to reafforest after a fire for example)- however this is an exceptional grant to recognise that you are not making any economic gain from the forest.

F.D

smccarrick wrote: »

If you clearfell- you never ever were eligible for grants to plant again.......
Its an afforestation grant- to afforest land not currently under forestry.
You sign a binding contract to keep the land forested in perpetuity- you cannot decide to clearfell and then plant pasture- just cause beef is doing good (as an example). You are obliged to reafforest after clearfelling- at your own cost.

In certain limited circumstances, you may qualify for a reconstitution grant (such as to reafforest after a fire for example)- however this is an exceptional grant to recognise that you are not making any economic gain from the forest.

Thanks for the info above that is one thing they dont make very clear, and it should be stated in big bold writing below any advert to plant land especially if you have family to leave the land to afterwards

greenfingers89

smccarrick wrote: »

If you clearfell- you never ever were eligible for grants to plant again.......
Its an afforestation grant- to afforest land not currently under forestry.
You sign a binding contract to keep the land forested in perpetuity- you cannot decide to clearfell and then plant pasture- just cause beef is doing good (as an example). You are obliged to reafforest after clearfelling- at your own cost.

In certain limited circumstances, you may qualify for a reconstitution grant (such as to reafforest after a fire for example)- however this is an exceptional grant to recognise that you are not making any economic gain from the forest.

correction; you do not sign a binding contract to keep the land in forestry forever, you sign to keep it for a period of 20 years (at this moment in time you must legally replant cleared forestry unless it is within 200ft of a dwelling, however there is clear intentions from the department down the road to allow forestry to be taken off land permanently, this change to the law will be implemented once the country has a certain level of forestry cover which will allow for better land which was planted to be farmed again) the reason for the 20 years contract is so that at least a short rotation crop will be produced if the law change comes into play regarding reforestation obligations...

you are also incorrect above regarding a reconstitution grant, since about 2 years ago, this grant is no longer payable on fire damaged sites... the reconstituion grant exists for the purpose of replanting forestry effected by deer damage or disease etc

if you want cover on replanting costs after a fire you must insure your forest

The_Conductor

Thanks for the update, sorry to the OP for spreading out of date information.
I'm definitely going to have to get onto Forestry and get uptodate copies of all the scheme details.

F.D

greenfingers89 wrote: »

however there is clear intentions from the department down the road to allow forestry to be taken off land permanently, this change to the law will be implemented once the country has a certain level of forestry cover which will allow for better land which was planted to be farmed again)

Will this target of forestry cover ever be met is the question? if not i wouldnt be holding my breath about forestry been allowed to be taken off permanently

The_Conductor

F.D wrote: »

greenfingers89 wrote: »

however there is clear intentions from the department down the road to allow forestry to be taken off land permanently, this change to the law will be implemented once the country has a certain level of forestry cover which will allow for better land which was planted to be farmed again)

Will this target of forestry cover ever be met is the question? if not i wouldnt be holding my breath about forestry been allowed to be taken off permanently

The stated target has remains 21-22% of total land cover, with a diversification away from monocultures to a max of half of this.

greenfingers89

smccarrick wrote: »

The stated target has remains 21-22% of total land cover, with a diversification away from monocultures to a max of half of this.

as far as i know the cover they have in mind is 15% before they allow land be taken out of forestry, you are correct about above figures but that is a more long term aspiration. we are currently at 11%, 4% of the country is approx 280,000 hectares (approx 700,000 acres). the planting is at almost an alltime low at the moment, we are planting about 7000 hectares per year therefore even if we stay at this very low figure we would reach 15% in about 40 years(which is quite short in forestry terms)

i dont see the big deal wit allowing forestry to be cleared in certain circumstances, most farmers would quickly learn that it is not even close to economical to clear forestry for agricultural practices...id say 1 in 20 (or even less) plantations has a chance of paying back the farmer over say a 40 year period when you take costs and more importantly time on the land into account