From Turf cutters to wood cutters??

Greaney

I'm very sorry that sustainable fuel (wood!!) didn't make it into the debate regarding the turf cutters compo, plans, and future. I figured that if the 15k had been paid upfront that perhaps one could buy a bit of land, start sowing fast growing trees, prune, coppice and eventually harvest wood. Fuel for life and for the next generation.

Obviously this isn't a trouble free solution (there is the issue of time, and the whole new skill set of using a chain saw, to put it simply) but it's surely a pretty sensible one!! We've the climate for it, the land, and when we want to... the intelligence;)

Seriously, how did it not even get a mention??

ei.sdraob

15K doesnt get one much of land, even nowadays

Cookie_Monster

would get you a lot of useless bog land now :pac::pac:

Scofflaw

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

would get you a lot of useless bog land now :pac::pac:

Indeed:

Plot 6 - Lauvlyer, C. 4 acres of fair/good quality bog land

Price Region: €7,000

http://www.foxandgallagher.com/property/sites.htm

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

The reason given for turf not being allowed to be cut is to protect the habitat of the bogs,
what do you think planting trees (if they grow!) would do to said bog habitats?

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The reason given for turf not being allowed to be cut is to protect the habitat of the bogs,
what do you think planting trees (if they grow!) would do to said bog habitats?

It's not necessary for someone to buy bogland that's been designated as of scientific interest, though - and that's all the bogland that's protected under this scheme.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Greaney

Come on guys, we can give better opinions than this!! Okay...


1) I obviously assumed that trees would not be planted on bog land!! I did understand why the ban came in:rolleyes:
2) What if Coillte had rolled in with support for a tree planting scheme? What kind of support would be useful? Managment courses, a web page with the basics of growing wood for fuel (species, time scales, forms of sustainable harvesting)
3) What if co-ops of turf cutters came together, pooled the money and did a slightly bigger project.
4) What is common practice in other parts of the world where folk have neither bogs nor coal mines??

Finally, the average price of an acre of agricultural land was less than 10k an acre in 2010 according to the farmers journal. I say it's do-able!!

MadsL

Isn't this fairly well covered here? http://www.forestryservices.ie/investment-ireland Tons of schemes/grants/tax breaks

Why would you need a specific bog-linked scheme?

And let's explode the romantic myth of turf-cutting as this;



When the reality is this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKqCog5m5Yo

Ming should be ashamed of the misrepresentation of this practice, there is NO justification for destroying carbon sinks and fragile rare habitats for short-term cheap heating.

Greaney

I totally agree, I don't think you need a specific scheme, but the turf cutters appeared so thick that I thought they'd need a bit of help getting there and that's where Ming showed a lack of leadership.

That he didn't introduce the idea of other options and challenge the amount and nature of the compensation showed him up as a mere agitator and not a real leader who could have really 'delivered' the turf cutters a good deal by re-negotiating 'how' the compensation was paid and so forth. I can't find the link but I think they ended up getting the 15k and 'turf for life'

Finally, I just found a response to the suggestion of using wood on their site. It's very and detailed. They've found heaps of reasons not to do it. I guess there's just not the will. Their traditions are more important... it sounds very familiar.

ei.sdraob

Whats wrong with a group of people having traditions?

what is this obsession (among the Environmentalism inclined) to force their way of life (or the way they think others should live) on others.

Have the Greens not learned after last election that snobbery, nannyism, and "behavioural modification" is not appreciated by people.

[MOD]Enough trolling.[/MOD]

MadsL

Whats wrong with a group of people having traditions?

Bear-baiting, cock-fighting, dog-fighting are traditional past-times. Care to argue they should be legal? Straw burning is 'traditional'.

If you want to make an argument from 'tradition', slavery could make a return.

what is this obsession (among the Environmentalism inclined) to force their way of life (or the way they think others should live) on others.

Err, probably because we live on the same planet and your actions have consequences for that planet. Raised bogs are carbon sinks that have a massive role to play in offsetting CO2 emmissions. If these were forests I doubt you would approve of clear felling.

Have the Greens not learned after last election that snobbery, nannyism, and "behavioural modification" is not appreciated by people.

Sorry, I don't get this. There is no class issue here. A bunch of people who make money from a commercial operation are rabble rousing about "the right to foot turf" on land that has European level habitat protection. If a group of locals decided to clear fell Epping Forest to burn the wood there would be outcry across Europe, yet these lads want to persist with ripping these habitats up with JCBs and cod you into thinking "sure it's just an oul'wan footin a bit o'sod."

In 1969, there was just 100,000 hectares of raised bog in Ireland, with Bord na Mona ripping up 45,000 of that at a rate of knots. These 45,000 acres will be completely exhausted by the middle of this century. The conservation effort is about protecting just the remaining 10% - 10,000 hectares of raised bog left for your children and future generations to understand what bog habitat is. In Wales they marvel at and protect raised bog as a biodiversity miracle, here we rip it up an burn it.

If that needs 'nanny' state tactics, so be it. Those 'footing' turf can't be trusted with the sharp tools from the shed.

This has NOTHING to do with party politics other than the parish pump bleatings of Ming - some hippy he turned out to be; a band wagon jumper like all the rest. Incidentally Phil Hogan is two-faced in this too, promising nothing will be done to touch peat cutting to the TCCA. Disgraceful.

Greaney

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Whats wrong with a group of people having traditions?[/B]

Many traditions are neither right nor wrong. I have to confess I was thinking of our recent equine bubble when I wrote that.

Back to the subject, I've read the case against taking up growing wood by the turf cutters. The only compelling part of their case was that the payment of promised compensation was very ropey. It was in instalments so as not to encourage developing alternative fuel source and many times in the past it was not paid. Perhaps that should have been what they focused on when presenting their case. I just get the feeling that if I were a turf cutter who was open to alternatives, I'd have been lynched at one of their meetings. Dialogue didn't seem an option.

MadsL

I just get the feeling that if I were a turf cutter who was open to alternatives, I'd have been lynched at one of their meetings. Dialogue didn't seem an option.

Try logging into the forum on the TCCA website. Dialogue is indeed not an option.

Environmentalist groups do indeed support coppicing as a fuel source; efficient wood burning stoves - rocket stoves for instance can be highly efficient as a heating source. Group co-operative pellet schemes might also be an option.

We also strongly support the recommendation of funding alternative energy sources for householders, including the facilitation and financing of medium-term rotation coppicing systems and sustainable woodland - based mainly on native broadleaved species - for energy biomass, either as individually or co-operatively owned woodlands.

From an excellent letter written to Ming in March.

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/peat/links/luke_flanagan_letter_03mar11.pdf

The loss of raised bogs to turf cutting has recently been found to be 99% of the original area of actively growing raised bog, with one-third of the remaining 1% lost in the last 10 years.

In fact, domestic turf cutting takes place at 117 of the 139 raised bogs designated for nature conservation, including state-owned designated bogs. At Clara Bog 71 such sites were found to be being actively cut on the part of bog in state ownership, in spite of warning notices having been erected.

Often the case is not the extent of the cutting, but the location, which can drain the core ‘ecotope' area of raised bogs and can results in collapses and the formation of lakes where pristine bog once flourished.
Cutting within 250 metres has been well established as damaging to the habitat, but even this does not take into account situations where layers under the bog may be affected which can lead to much more extensive drying out. This was the case at Clara Bog where the subsidence due to turf cutting was measured over 600m away from the face-bank.

Your public claim that in spite of cutting at the TCCA Chairman's Lissnageerah Bog, the bog had increased by 45.03% was particularly specious when added to your complaint that the state ‘has many years to carry out remedial works' and had not done so. It is because of remedial works at this bog that the area has increased.

clonmahon

There are already large amounts of birch and willow growing on abandoned bogs all over the midlands and south Ulster. About 35 years ago when the tractor mounted sausage turf machine came in, a lot of previously hand cut bogland was abandoned. Some of it was in plots that were small, a lot of it had very deep hand cut bog holes that excluded tractors. Anyway there is now a lot of excellent hardwood timber growing on it. Very suitable for firewood.

I live in south Cavan where there is lots of it and I have been harvesting it from a bog belonging to my neighbour for 20 years. Before this (like Ming) I reared turf on a raised bog - in Co Westmeath. The major problem with this woodland is that it is not generally accessible to machines or draught animals. The only way to get the timber out and onto solid ground is by hand. It requires manual labour but then so does rearing turf.

I have no idea how much of this timber is in Ireland but we are certainly talking about tens of thousands of acres. Lots of it in Roscommon if the likes of Ming wanted to cut it. If anyone is travelling on the M4 keep an eye out lots of it to be seen from the motorway.

In addition there is lots of scrub woodland all over the island on very steep slopes, again not suitable for machines harvest, but accessible on foot. This is first class hardwood like oak, ash, beech etc. Lot of this in North Roscommon and in the glens of Leitrim. Lot of it in the hilly country between Oldcastle and Mullingar. These are just two areas I know, presumably lots more it elsewhere on the island.

In addition the large scale planting of commerical forestry by farmers in this country really began in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Very little of this timber has been managed properly and it will not produce good construction timber, it will only be suitable for firewood or pulping. Much of this timber is now ready for first thinning and is very suitable for firewood. Being softwood it is not suitable for open fires (it spits) but will work well in stoves.

The point is there are already vast firewood resource in the country. What is required is that people open their eyes and see it, have willing hands to go and harvest it and can strike deals with landowners. Some people I know have done sharecropping deals they cut out what they like and get it out onto level, solid ground and the landowner takes half.

Last year I spent 16 euros on chainsaw fuel and chain oil. I used about half of that to cut a years supply of timber. I burn it in a Stanley No 8 range, which is the only source of space and water heating in my 800 sq foot house. We do all our cooking on the Stanley. As the woodland is only about 500 metres from my house we bring the timber home on a handcart. We payed our entire heating and cooking bills last year for 8 euros in cash, not bad for a household of four.

One cord (128 cubic feet) of seasoned birch wood (at 15% moisture) has the same potential energy as about 500 litres of kerosene. In practice if burned in an efficent stove it works out about equal to maybe 440 litres of kerosene, if the kerosene is burned in a 95% efficient condenser boiler. A yield of two to three cords of birch an acre maybe harvested about every 15 years (willow about every 10). There are tens of thousands of acres of this scrub wood all over the island. We already have a vast store of potential energy, we don’t need to plant trees for firewood, nature has already done it for us. All we need is the wit to go and harvest it.

Greaney

In addition the large scale planting of commerical forestry by farmers in this country really began in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Very little of this timber has been managed properly and it will not produce good construction timber, it will only be suitable for firewood or pulping. Much of this timber is now ready for first thinning and is very suitable for firewood. Being softwood it is not suitable for open fires (it spits) but will work well in stoves.

Once wood is dried (seasoned) for the year, it shouldn't spit. I think that's why one sees so many banks of wood in countries where it's their 'tradition'. One shouldn't really burn green wood (unseasoned), it's less efficient because of the water content, just like turf, and gives off more emissions.

As for burning soft wood, it's grand. From what I can gather it's all by weight. Soft wood is lighter in weight so it, burns faster. It just takes more to get the same heat but you get it fast!:D

clonmahon

Greaney wrote: »

Once wood is dried (seasoned) for the year, it shouldn't spit. I think that's why one sees so many banks of wood in countries where it's their 'tradition'. One shouldn't really burn green wood (unseasoned), it's less efficient because of the water content, just like turf, and gives off more emissions.

As for burning soft wood, it's grand. From what I can gather it's all by weight. Soft wood is lighter in weight so it, burns faster. It just takes more to get the same heat but you get it fast!:D

Your are right burning fresh wood is a terrible waste, to get wood to 15% moisture it needs to be seasoned under cover for a least two years or else split into small pieces and seasoned for a year. Burning fresh wood will also cause a build up of creosote on your flue, which can lead to a chimney fire.

Softwood will spit no matter how long it has been seasoned as it is rich in resin, but this does not matter if burnt in an enclosed stove. If burned in an open fire a fireguard is needed and it should never be left unattended. In any case open fires are very inefficient and are a waste of good fuel.

You are right it's all about weight. A cord of Birch wood as I said is equal to about 500 liters of kerosene, a cord of oak would be closer to 600 liters and a cord of softwood like spruce would be closer to 400 liters of kerosene. But it is as you say all good for burning.

In my range I will burn softwood if I want to boil the kettle quickly, and hardwood if I want to bake bread.

greenfingers89

clonmahon wrote: »

large scale planting of commerical forestry by farmers in this country really began in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Very little of this timber has been managed properly and it will not produce good construction timber, it will only be suitable for firewood or pulping.

not sure of your knowledge on forestry or what you are basing this statement on but i couldn't disagree more. people are always raving about spruce not having any use other than firewood, all the time not realising its all over their houses, gardens, businesses and farms

Scofflaw

greenfingers89 wrote: »

not sure of your knowledge on forestry or what you are basing this statement on but i couldn't disagree more. people are always raving about spruce not having any use other than firewood, all the time not realising its all over their houses, gardens, businesses and farms

The two statements aren't incompatible - a lot of Irish commercial forestry has been badly managed (if at all), wasn't planted on decent land, and won't be much use. That doesn't mean spruce in general is of no use.

cordially,
Scofflaw

clonmahon

greenfingers89 wrote: »

not sure of your knowledge on forestry or what you are basing this statement on but i couldn't disagree more. people are always raving about spruce not having any use other than firewood, all the time not realising its all over their houses, gardens, businesses and farms

You misunderstand me I did not say that spruce is only suitable for firewood, you are absolutely right spruce is excellent construction timber. What I wrote was "Very little of this timber has been managed properly and it will not produce good construction timber" The problem is that Irish farmers have no tradition of forestry, they planted because they got grants and subsidies.

Most of the timber planted on farms in the last 20 years is not being managed. To get good construction timber you need to prune it in the early years, to remove double leaders, and major side branches. This produces straight grained, knot free timber. The folly here is that a tiny amount of labour makes the difference between good construction timber and firewood. But in most cases this has not happened and the result will be poor quality timber.

It also needs to be thinned at the right time, I see a lot of plantations in my travels planted in the late 80s that are overdue thinning, but still no sign of it to happen. Again this will affect quality.

My knowledge of forestry is based on working in the forestry industry in the last 80s and early 90s. And 20 years of harvesting wood as a home heating fuel.

clonmahon

Scofflaw wrote: »

The two statements aren't incompatible - a lot of Irish commercial forestry has been badly managed (if at all), wasn't planted on decent land, and won't be much use. That doesn't mean spruce in general is of no use.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Spot on most Irish farmers think only crap land should be planted with timber, but quality timber production requires decent land.

Uriel.

From the coverage of this issue that i've seen, the cutters quite simply aren't interested in compensation. Or a Least, their leaders are refusing to let them be interested in compensation.

Claims of civil disobedience and plans to break the law next year appears to be the best of their leadership.

I can't see any (realistic) offer of compensation being enough to deter them from their plans

Tipp Man

clonmahon wrote: »

Spot on most Irish farmers think only crap land should be planted with timber, but quality timber production requires decent land.

I can't think of a bigger waste of good quality land than to plant it - we are some of the best producers of grass in the world on our good land - I seriously can't fathom why anybody would plant it (bar for the grants)

greenfingers89

Scofflaw wrote: »

a lot of Irish commercial forestry has been badly managed (if at all).

massive sweeping statement, sorry but i completly disagree....coillte is actively managing its portfolio, i know you might say the private sector is a huge part of the industry now (and it is) but almost two thirds of the private forestry in ireland is owned by less than 200 people/companies and these are being actively managed with a view to producing good quality commercial timber....this "lot of badly managed forest" is simply not there, it may be a lot of acres but overall the percentage is very low....and often the reason it looks badly managed is because the owner didnt take the advice of the forester or management company

greenfingers89

clonmahon wrote: »

You misunderstand "Very little of this timber has been managed properly and it will not produce good construction timber"

Most of the timber planted on farms in the last 20 years is not being managed. To get good construction timber you need to prune it in the early years, to remove double leaders, and major side branches. This produces straight grained, knot free timber.

didnt misunderstand you at all (just didnt make myself 100% clear) its the statement you quote here that i believe to be completly false. regarding pruning this applies to hardwoods, if you genuinly think spruce, pine or larch needs pruning and shaping to ensure quality timber you're away with the fairies...there isn't even a difference in the price paid by sawmills for some of the spruce stands that were pruned under the old pruning grant scheme. douglas fir i would agree would benefit from pruning but again this certainly doesnt represent a large amount of forestry in ireland.

clonmahon

First you say

greenfingers89 wrote: »

if you genuinly think spruce, pine or larch needs pruning and shaping to ensure quality timber you're away with the fairies...

Then you say

greenfingers89 wrote: »

the spruce stands that were pruned under the old pruning grant scheme.

So if pruning has no value for softwoods why was there an "old pruning grant scheme" obviously more than me "away with the fairies"

Do you believe that a tree with a double leader would make good construction timber.

I also note you have not addressed the question of thinning at all.

Let me put the same question to you as you put to me. "not sure of your knowledge on forestry or what you are basing this statement". I have six years experience in the forestry industry and I have 4 years experience in the wood working business. I have worked at both ends of the timber business. What's your experience.

clonmahon

Tipp Man wrote: »

I can't think of a bigger waste of good quality land than to plant it - we are some of the best producers of grass in the world on our good land - I seriously can't fathom why anybody would plant it (bar for the grants)

You are right our climate is superb for growing grass, but it also superb for growing timber. And quality timber grown on quality land is a very valuable crop, can you explain how this is a waste. We need hardwood timber in the future and we cannot go on cutting down the tropical rain forests to provide it.

greenfingers89

clonmahon wrote: »

So if pruning has no value for softwoods why was there an "old pruning grant scheme" obviously more than me "away with the fairies"

Do you believe that a tree with a double leader would make good construction timber.

I also note you have not addressed the question of thinning at all.

Let me put the same question to you as you put to me. "not sure of your knowledge on forestry or what you are basing this statement". I have six years experience in the forestry industry and I have 4 years experience in the wood working business. I have worked at both ends of the timber business. What's your experience.

im assuming there was a pruning grant to try and improve the quality of the timber, im only pointing out that this is not recognised in anyway by the purchasers of said timber

i dont believe a double leader is good at all but come on now you cant say there is anywhere near a lot of softwood stands out there with significant forking

i didnt bring up thinning because i agree that thinning needs to be done like you say, im still not sure that the majority are gone to late for thinning, remember also some stands are not thinned due to location, wind risk, cost of harvesting, difficult underlying soil(deep peat) or even market demand( thinnings wernt any where near as valuable as recently as 8 years ago) etc etc.

there are of course examples to back up crops that arn't thinned, have forking, may have some significant heavy branching but remember i disagreed with the idea that that most forests arnt being managed

summing up pruning and shaping does no harm at all, thinning should always be done where possible and there are a minority of poor forests out there(many of which were managed adequatly but owners didnt follow advice) and apologies for my away with the fairies comment if i offended you(im sure you wont lose sleep over it)

Tipp Man

clonmahon wrote: »

You are right our climate is superb for growing grass, but it also superb for growing timber. And quality timber grown on quality land is a very valuable crop, can you explain how this is a waste. We need hardwood timber in the future and we cannot go on cutting down the tropical rain forests to provide it.

We have the lowest acerage of forestry in the EU (as a %age of land area), we have the highet % of grass. We are better at growing grass than any other country in Europe - I don't think we are better at growing timber than every country in the EU. Our advantage is in grass and not timber - this coupled with the fact that the other countries have what must be a 50 or 100 year head start (given the size of their forestry) means that we will be better focusing on grass than timber. Given how long it takes for timber to grow, therefore how long it would take for our forestry to establish and be able to compete with other countries then we are better focusing on grass IMO

Note i am not saying we should have no forestry - clearly we should but good Irish land is better in grass than in trees IMO

greenfingers89

Tipp Man wrote: »

I can't think of a bigger waste of good quality land than to plant it - we are some of the best producers of grass in the world on our good land - I seriously can't fathom why anybody would plant it (bar for the grants)

we aint that bad at producing rushes either!:p its this land that needs constant work that could perhaps be better utilised in forestry

Tipp Man

greenfingers89 wrote: »

we aint that bad at producing rushes either!:p its this land that needs constant work that could perhaps be better utilised in forestry

No doubt there is farmland that would be better utilised as forestry. I was more aiming at planting good farmland

greenfingers89

Tipp Man wrote: »

- I don't think we are better at growing timber than every country in the EU. Our advantage is in grass and not timber - this coupled with the fact that the other countries have what must be a 50 or 100 year head start (given the size of their forestry) means that we will be better focusing on grass than timber. Given how long it takes for timber to grow, therefore how long it would take for our forestry to establish

Note i am not saying we should have no forestry - clearly we should but good Irish land is better in grass than in trees IMO

we can actually grow timber a lot faster, twice and three times faster than some countries in europe, even in comparison to england we have Yield Class as high as 30 and 32 here on good land whilst they would be around 26 and 28, a significant difference considering how close and similar we are

there is far more farm land out there that would be better off planted, if anything it would benefit farming in the medium and longterm

Tipp Man

greenfingers89 wrote: »

we can actually grow timber a lot faster, twice and three times faster than some countries in europe, even in comparison to england we have Yield Class as high as 30 and 32 here on good land whilst they would be around 26 and 28, a significant difference considering how close and similar we are

there is far more farm land out there that would be better off planted, if anything it would benefit farming in the medium and longterm

But how long before we would see any advantage to being able to grow timber faster - at a minimum what 20-25 years surely.

We can see the grass advantage this year, next year and every year. When you take grassland out of production for 25 years then the forestry would have to have an exceptional return to negate the loss from the grassland

greenfingers89

a ye i know what your saying, im only advocating semi productive ground being planted, to give you an idea if differences in growth rates, spruce here could be mature in approx 32-35 years, could take 50+ years in many european countries! but yes the excellent quality ground in ireland will produce a better return than forestry... i do believe that we could plant another 10% of this country(not talking about mountains or bogs) without adversely effecting farming outputs

Greaney

Ha ha, are you seriously thinking there's a good argument for not growing trees!!???

No ones suggesting that grass is not a good crop, cow's 'n sheep don't eat leaves.

I think we've room to grow everything in this country, and thinking long term re; trees may be worth it. Our peat-burning power plants may be burning wood in 15-25 years and then the lad/lass who had the foresight to grow trees may be laughing all the way to the bank.;) It's happened before. My significant other works for an environmental consultancy and one of their clients was a fella who planted and tended a small forest years ago, when the issue of a wood powerplant came up in his area he was the one with the wood.:D And wood grows quicker in Ireland than it does in Alaska!

Another article on the issue here.

clonmahon

greenfingers89 wrote: »

grew up on a nursery, 3 years hardwood thinning, 4 years in a secondary sawmill, 2 years in a primary sawmill, 4 years working as a forester in britain and germany and 11 years a forester in ireland, part-time course in wood science and technology

OK you trump me, big time.

greenfingers89 wrote: »

i dont believe a double leader is good at all but come on now you cant say there is anywhere near a lot of softwood stands out there with significant forking

Agreed

greenfingers89 wrote: »

i didnt bring up thinning because i agree that thinning needs to be done like you say, im still not sure that the majority are gone to late for thinning, remember also some stands are not thinned due to location, wind risk, cost of harvesting, difficult underlying soil(deep peat) or even market demand( thinnings wernt any where near as valuable as recently as 8 years ago) etc etc.

there are of course examples to back up crops that arn't thinned, have forking, may have some significant heavy branching but remember i disagreed with the idea that that most forests arnt being managed

I have no idea of the percentage of forestry not being managed at all. All the Coillte stuff is being managed well, no doubt about that. But around home (south cavan) many small plots on farms are not being managed at all, some of these plots are long overdue thinning, but the landowners don't care. You may well be right that this is a minority.

greenfingers89 wrote: »

apologies for my away with the fairies comment if i offended you(im sure you wont lose sleep over it)

Apology accepted I would speculate there is not one person on boards who has not at least once posted intemperate comments.

On a final note I would restate my original point leaving aside the spruce forests, there is lots of scrub wood in Ireland perfectly suitable for sustainable firewood harvesting.

MadsL

Great post Clonmahon. Thanks you for the contribution; consider dumping your ash back in the wood to complete the cycle and promote growth.

clonmahon

MadsL wrote: »

Great post Clonmahon. Thanks you for the contribution; consider dumping your ash back in the wood to complete the cycle and promote growth.

Thanks MadsL I know you are right about this, I keep thinking I must do that. The spirit is strong but the flesh is weak. When I want to make my porridge in the morning the temptation to throw the ashes in the garden and get the fire going usually wins. But you are right, these old boglands are deficient in potash.

I was reading Tipp Mans post that it would take 25 to 30 years before we would see any advantage in growing trees. I have four children and I hope they will have children and 25 to 30 years is nothing, a blink in the eye. The Iroquois Indians would discuss every matter in their assembly and ask what will the impact of this decision be on the next 7 generations.

I know from reading Boards.ie that Tipp Man is big noise in farming but we have to stop judging everything on the profit we will make next year and do stuff that won't benefit us but will help our great, great, great, great, grand children. So I will set up a bin for the wood ash and bring it back to the wood. Maybe we should start to think about Irish economics as it affects seven generations ahead, maybe if the turf cutters looked at that they might not think that cutting the bogs away now is the best option.

allanpkr

any argument is really redundant about to cut turf or not. yes we know ecosystems will be destroyed if bogs are cut.will this destroy the food chain thats another question.would it affect our lives , im sure some will say yes.some will say no..but....ect ect

1. i dont think it will do either, and if we are being honest who does. understand im not getting into whether its right or wrong here, that would just go on and on.
2. will burning turf destroy our eco system in ireland and world or would burning oil destroy destroy it. if you say both. which would affect it more.
3. is it easier to stop a few people cutting turf for fuel or stopping the worlds reliance on oil.

4. are most people against turf cutters ,cause they should have just rolled over and died, but didnt. see question 3
5. remember this turf cannot replace oil for fuel, but nor can timber today or ever. even small scale. as openyoureyes would have us believe.
6 today we are destroying vast amounts of this world by different forms of pollution , which in turn is destroying plants and animal life. yet we choose to look at bogs and say enough is enough. i personally find this sad and LAZY. this is not the power of one working.
win the small battles and eventually we save the world, claptrap.
lets turn round to people and say no more burning oil for heating or put 100% carbon tax on oil... all you eco warriors who want to save the bogs must surely agree with that.
7. of course you will say ..thats not practicle ,there is no other fuel we can use. but i thought it all comes down to saving the ecosystems.
lastly the replys will come thick and fast now.as to why this is all rubbish. but really its to uncomfortable to digest truth always is.

Uriel.

allanpkr wrote: »

any argument is really redundant about to cut turf or not. yes we know ecosystems will be destroyed if bogs are cut.will this destroy the food chain thats another question.would it affect our lives , im sure some will say yes.some will say no..but....ect ect

1. i dont think it will do either, and if we are being honest who does. understand im not getting into whether its right or wrong here, that would just go on and on.
2. will burning turf destroy our eco system in ireland and world or would burning oil destroy destroy it. if you say both. which would affect it more.
3. is it easier to stop a few people cutting turf for fuel or stopping the worlds reliance on oil.

4. are most people against turf cutters ,cause they should have just rolled over and died, but didnt. see question 3
5. remember this turf cannot replace oil for fuel, but nor can timber today or ever. even small scale. as openyoureyes would have us believe.
6 today we are destroying vast amounts of this world by different forms of pollution , which in turn is destroying plants and animal life. yet we choose to look at bogs and say enough is enough. i personally find this sad and LAZY. this is not the power of one working.
win the small battles and eventually we save the world, claptrap.
lets turn round to people and say no more burning oil for heating or put 100% carbon tax on oil... all you eco warriors who want to save the bogs must surely agree with that.
7. of course you will say ..thats not practicle ,there is no other fuel we can use. but i thought it all comes down to saving the ecosystems.
lastly the replys will come thick and fast now.as to why this is all rubbish. but really its to uncomfortable to digest truth always is.

The turf cutting issues in question relates solely to the protection/conservation of an endangered habitat.

Issues in relation to the emissions, fuel consumption, sustainable energy, fossil fuels etc, while important, is not the primary concern

allanpkr

you missed my point read again.. i know what its about..putting it simply i dont think it matters CHOOSING TO SAY AS MOST PEOPLE DO ABOUT THE HABITAT..that whilst other matters are although important are not the primary concern of the pro turf cutting ban..is a total cop out by you people .please read what i said.my whole point is about choosing a small item in this world .i.e bogs insted of real problem. no point saving one tree in forest when rest of forest burning down, save the forest.
or as you people like to do, which is have tunnel vision and just keep saying as amantra to whatever is said "ITS ABOUT THE HABITAT"
AGAIN READ WHAT I WROTE....i have to believe you chose not to understand what i said. rather than ...you really didnt understand it.

K-9

Mod:

Thread is nearly 2 years old plus the OP is more about wood cutting