Farmers views on forestry

carrollsno1

Just reading through some of the threads here and for financial reasons people are being encouraged to plant ground as its more profitable just wondering whats your views on it i suppose my view is that it might be profitable and tax free but your still more or less selling up and ruining it for the future generations

fepper

state pays for first forestry rotation and leave it up to landowner if he wants to replant after clearfell, that should give next next generation options for their future

Water John

Don't think that's the option, fepper, with regard to 2nd planting, its compulsory.

The sitka are ugly feckers. Kill any ground cover. Acidify the soil, too.

fepper

Water John wrote: »

Don't think that's the option, fepper, with regard to 2nd planting, its compulsory.

The sitka are ugly feckers. Kill any ground cover. Acidify the soil, too.

i know that ,what im saying is the obligation to replant is making planting unattractive to farmers

Water John

Sorry about that.

fepper

when sitka is thinned,ground cover returns

alps

carrollsno1 wrote: »

Just reading through some of the threads here and for financial reasons people are being encouraged to plant ground as its more profitable just wondering whats your views on it i suppose my view is that it might be profitable and tax free but your still more or less selling up and ruining it for the future generations

One trip pony unless the ground is worthless to any other enterprise...

djmc

It doesn't do much to keep farming families in the area either leading to rural decline.
Often it's the only opinion to make a living from the land.
I would rather see some environmental scheme that would support a suitable type of farming or measures taken to help make it sustainable.
I think wind turbines would be less harmful to an area than silka.

blue5000

alps wrote: »

One trip pony unless the ground is worthless to any other enterprise...

I have some on a cutaway bog, it's doing well, the payment is more than I ever made farming it anyway and the trees will be part of my pension fund. It's a mix of sitka, norway, alder with native woodland in the middle of it for biodiversity. Wouldn't think I devalued it by planting yet anyway.
If anyone knows of a county with a timber crane on it sitting in nettles PM me please;)

carrollsno1

Would they not be better off encouragibg farmers to plant trees along internal roadways and ditches as is?

blue5000

carrollsno1 wrote: »

Would they not be better off encouragibg farmers to plant trees along internal roadways and ditches as is?

You don't get good quality that way, only firewood. In a wood the trees grow tall and straight to reach light, in a hedge it's all branches and then knots instead of straight timber.

carrollsno1

blue5000 wrote: »

You don't get good quality that way, only firewood. In a wood the trees grow tall and straight to reach light, in a hedge it's all branches and then knots instead of straight timber.

Its not for timber quality im wondering about its to make sure weve enough trees sown to meet carbon targets if you get me

Username John

carrollsno1 wrote: »

Its not for timber quality im wondering about its to make sure weve enough trees sown to meet carbon targets if you get me

Where are the carbon targets defined?

And what classifies as contributing to meet (or should I say offset?) these carbon targets?

Where does grass come in this carbon target?

Capercaillie

carrollsno1 wrote: »

Its not for timber quality im wondering about its to make sure weve enough trees sown to meet carbon targets if you get me

Government pushes for increased non-native stika plantations to offset carbon emissions. At the same time SFP incentivises farmers to destroy scrub which sequesters Carbon. Government/Domestic turfcutters continue to strip mine bogs which releases huge amounts of Carbon.
Not very logical........

ganmo

Capercaillie wrote: »

Government pushes for increased non-native stika plantations to offset carbon emissions. At the same time SFP incentivises farmers to destroy scrub which sequesters Carbon. Government/Domestic turfcutters continue to strip mine bogs which releases huge amounts of Carbon.
Not very logical........

But very governmental

Markcheese

Seen plenty of fields and corners of fields that have had a fortune spent on draining -reclaiming them, and for no real return. A lot of them would be far better off with forestry even if its only a few small blocks...
If the ground allows a mix with a good share of broadleaf in it , the broadleafs will grow back after harvest...
I think the grant structure should be set up to encourage farmers to train and become foresters , to try and get most return out of their trees, rather than just getting contractors in ...

Alibaba

Forestry is just a crop , same as any other only it takes years to mature.

But on wet , rushy land I think it's one of the best options.

Miname

Bad ground and wet corners should be planted if that's what the owner wants, but to go out and plant good ground is pure cracked from both an economics point of view and productivity wise. It's the lazy mans way of farming without having to sell up.

manjou

Miname wrote: »

Bad ground and wet corners should be planted if that's what the owner wants, but to go out and plant good ground is pure cracked from both an economics point of view and productivity wise. It's the lazy mans way of farming without having to sell up.

The returns from forestry on good ground make it very profitable. With good management sitka can be cleared at under 30 years. Not lazy option as like all farming it needs work to get best return. Just finished first thinning and now will start will start high pruning trees so as to maximise returns . Here it is another enterprise on farm tails nicely with cattle as can do forestry work can be done when cattle are quiet. There are only one reason why rest of land dose not join it and that is the replanting rule as would not like to tie up best land for next generation as they would have no choice in what they do with land

Miname

manjou wrote: »

The returns from forestry on good ground make it very profitable. With good management sitka can be cleared at under 30 years. Not lazy option as like all farming it needs work to get best return. Just finished first thinning and now will start will start high pruning trees so as to maximise returns . Here it is another enterprise on farm tails nicely with cattle as can do forestry work can be done when cattle are quiet. There are only one reason why rest of land dose not join it and that is the replanting rule as would not like to tie up best land for next generation as they would have no choice in what they do with land

There's a lad beside me planted the best of ground. 20 years ago, it's a long way off clear felling and no income coming in off it. He might as well forget about it now. The money's alright to start with but its not much good going to the shop with a picture of trees when you need a pint of milk.

Capercaillie

manjou wrote: »

The returns from forestry on good ground make it very profitable. With good management sitka can be cleared at under 30 years. Not lazy option as like all farming it needs work to get best return. Just finished first thinning and now will start will start high pruning trees so as to maximise returns . Here it is another enterprise on farm tails nicely with cattle as can do forestry work can be done when cattle are quiet. There are only one reason why rest of land dose not join it and that is the replanting rule as would not like to tie up best land for next generation as they would have no choice in what they do with land

Is it any way possible to plant native broadleaf trees on good land so they are as profitable as stika spruce?

djmc

Capercaillie wrote: »

Is it any way possible to plant native broadleaf trees on good land so they are as profitable as stika spruce?

Yes I have relatives that have done this
The grant payments are higher for 15 years but after that nothing for maybe 80 or 100 years to clearfell.
Might suit someone approaching retirement with no successor for the farm.
Also bewilders the farmer's around you hoping to get your place when you are too old to carry on.

Bass Reeves

Forestry is like a one trick pony in a circus. When the trick is done it is done. Maybe for large land owners with 200+ acres it may have a place on marginal land that they have and where they can incorporate it into an income stream by selling thinning as firewood and harvesting commercial timber for to sell directly to mills on a regular basis.

On marginal land it may be an option however broadleave trees are not really an option as crop length is way too long. As well on better land trees grow too fast and this timber is not as strong as slow growing timber. Take ash any good hurley maker will tell you that fast growing ash (trees grown in forrestry that can be cut after 20-25 years) is not as strong as ash that comes from a tree the same size but has taken 40+ years to grow. It is the same with commercial timber. Grain density is very important.

How many of us have bought stake that are treated and only last 10ish years. These usually are from trees that are fast growing and as well for treatment company they are faster to treat and use less chemical. However timber that is slower growing from poorer sites on mountain's make much better stakes grain is more dense and timber is harder to treat right and takes more chemical.these stakes will last 20+ years.

People putting land into forestry need to realize that there is no going back. Even if replanting is not an obligation reclaiming costs on good land are prohibitive. As well land will be extremely hungry after forestry. Saw land that was cleaned of scrub by bulldozing. It has been reclaimed nearly 10 years now. Scrub was bulldozed into heaps and burned. This land has a yellow hungry look about it all year long. The P&K needed to replace that which was burned from the scrub would cost a fortune to replace. Forestry land would be the same if not worse take off the crop of trees after 40 years and the roots would have to be dug up and removed. IMO you would be looking at a bill of 3K+/acre to reclaim forestry land back into agriculture.

This means that reclaiming land is not an option even if you are under no obligation to replant. If yous plant good quality land you are reducing the capital value of it by 50-70% and if you plant with broadleaf's you will have little or no income after the premiums run out for 20+ years. Even on marginal land planting is a questionable decision unless there are replanting grants down the line. IMO most of this land will be sold on at very low prices (1-2K/Acre and maybe less) after the first crop to commercial forestry company's like Coillte who will then replant it unless there are replanting grants available.

On poorer quality mountain land the crop length will be longer than marginal land and crop will be lower. However the forestry premiums will exceed any commercial farming returns by 100%+ and after that it a case it is for the next generation to decide what they will do with it. It will be interesting to see as plantations are clear felled over the next 10 years what happens to the land and if it will be replanted by orginal owners.

_Brian

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Forestry is like a one trick pony in a circus. When the trick is done it is done. Maybe for large land owners with 200+ acres it may have a place on marginal land that they have and where they can incorporate it into an income stream by selling thinning as firewood and harvesting commercial timber for to sell directly to mills on a regular basis.

On marginal land it may be an option however broadleave trees are not really an option as crop length is way too long. As well on better land trees grow too fast and this timber is not as strong as slow growing timber. Take ash any good hurley maker will tell you that fast growing ash (trees grown in forrestry that can be cut after 20-25 years) is not as strong as ash that comes from a tree the same size but has taken 40+ years to grow. It is the same with commercial timber. Grain density is very important.

How many of us have bought stake that are treated and only last 10ish years. These usually are from trees that are fast growing and as well for treatment company they are faster to treat and use less chemical. However timber that is slower growing from poorer sites on mountain's make much better stakes grain is more dense and timber is harder to treat right and takes more chemical.these stakes will last 20+ years.

People putting land into forestry need to realize that there is no going back. Even if replanting is not an obligation reclaiming costs on good land are prohibitive. As well land will be extremely hungry after forestry. Saw land that was cleaned of scrub by bulldozing. It has been reclaimed nearly 10 years now. Scrub was bulldozed into heaps and burned. This land has a yellow hungry look about it all year long. The P&K needed to replace that which was burned from the scrub would cost a fortune to replace. Forestry land would be the same if not worse take off the crop of trees after 40 years and the roots would have to be dug up and removed. IMO you would be looking at a bill of 3K+/acre to reclaim forestry land back into agriculture.

This means that reclaiming land is not an option even if you are under no obligation to replant. If yous plant good quality land you are reducing the capital value of it by 50-70% and if you plant with broadleaf's you will have little or no income after the premiums run out for 20+ years. Even on marginal land planting is a questionable decision unless there are replanting grants down the line. IMO most of this land will be sold on at very low prices (1-2K/Acre and maybe less) after the first crop to commercial forestry company's like Coillte who will then replant it unless there are replanting grants available.

On poorer quality mountain land the crop length will be longer than marginal land and crop will be lower. However the forestry premiums will exceed any commercial farming returns by 100%+ and after that it a case it is for the next generation to decide what they will do with it. It will be interesting to see as plantations are clear felled over the next 10 years what happens to the land and if it will be replanted by original owners.

There is a farm I pass and it was clear felled three years ago. It would have been good land for this area.
The original owner died and passed it on I think to a nephew a wile back so I'm presuming it is he who cleared it.

Until I read the details of this thread I never really understood why it hadn't been returned to forestry but it makes sense now.. At the moment its sitting there with wild scrub taking over and is likely to do so. The farm probably runs to maybe 60 acres and from this thread has no real value now..

patsy_mccabe

Have a look at this 1,263 acres and 950 acres in commercial forestry. What would it be worth if all in pasture?

http://www.christiesrealestate.com/eng/sales/detail/170-l-78051-1510071109436587/kilcooley-estate-other-ireland-ie

djmc

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Have a look at this 1,263 acres and 950 acres in commercial forestry. What would it be worth if all in pasture?

http://www.christiesrealestate.com/eng/sales/detail/170-l-78051-1510071109436587/kilcooley-estate-other-ireland-ie

I remember seeing that place a few years ago for sale at 2 million some profit if it makes the asking price now.

Nekarsulm

djmc wrote: »

I remember seeing that place a few years ago for sale at 2 million some profit if it makes the asking price now.

That's still heading for €8000 an acre, is that not strong money for forestry? The house itsself is often worthless in the scheme of things, a millstone round someone's neck.

ganmo

I don't think Christies would be selling it if the house wasn't there

Nekarsulm

ganmo wrote: »

I don't think Christies would be selling it if the house wasn't there

I suppose. Between them, Savilles and Knight Frank for estates/country piles.

Base price

Capercaillie wrote: »

Government pushes for increased non-native stika plantations to offset carbon emissions. At the same time SFP incentivises farmers to destroy scrub which sequesters Carbon. Government/Domestic turfcutters continue to strip mine bogs which releases huge amounts of Carbon.
Not very logical........

Cannot agree with you about scrub. Is scrub not classified as habitat. We have scrub on an outfarm and cannot touch it. Local NWPS ranger had a heart attach and cautioned us when we had to re-fence part of the boundary a few years ago with the aid of a digger.

roosky

whelan2 wrote:

Where do you see yourself if milk price continues as it is? This an anonymous poll

fepper wrote:

state pays for first forestry rotation and leave it up to landowner if he wants to replant after clearfell, that should give next next generation options for their future

To be honest as a young farmer after coming into bad land fit for nothing but planting i would be inclined to plant and save future generations the burden

Username John

Base price wrote: »

Cannot agree with you about scrub. Is scrub not classified as habitat. We have scrub on an outfarm and cannot touch it. Local NWPS ranger had a heart attach and cautioned us when we had to re-fence part of the boundary a few years ago with the aid of a digger.

Thought that was only if you designated it as habitat yourself in REPS or something?
We'd have a bit of scrub (briars, ferns, blackthorns, that kinda thing) and I'm clearing it away a small bit every year... Trees I don't mind, but ferns / briars I really dislike...

freedominacup

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Have a look at this 1,263 acres and 950 acres in commercial forestry. What would it be worth if all in pasture?

http://www.christiesrealestate.com/eng/sales/detail/170-l-78051-1510071109436587/kilcooley-estate-other-ireland-ie

That's a good farming area. Asking price is around €6300/acre. Would the forestry pay for reclamation back to productive farmland as it was cleared? Might be cheap at the price. The ariel photo shows plots of productive farmland dispersed across the block. Could be a reasonably cheap way into a large block of land for someone with youth on their side and deep pockets.

mf240

Make an ideal hotel . if someone had money.

Base price

Username John wrote: »

Thought that was only if you designated it as habitat yourself in REPS or something?
We'd have a bit of scrub (briars, ferns, blackthorns, that kinda thing) and I'm clearing it away a small bit every year... Trees I don't mind, but ferns / briars I really dislike...

Ours is mostly whins, blackthorn, briars and ferns. We were never in reps or any other environmental scheme.

Bass Reeves

freedominacup wrote: »

That's a good farming area. Asking price is around €6300/acre. Would the forestry pay for reclamation back to productive farmland as it was cleared? Might be cheap at the price. The ariel photo shows plots of productive farmland dispersed across the block. Could be a reasonably cheap way into a large block of land for someone with youth on their side and deep pockets.

These houses were never build on bad land. They were always build on the best land around. You may not be allowed to turn it back into farmland if you could and has 9-10 million in your back pocket you could do worse with it. Generally timber from good forest at clearfell makes about 20K/HA. So I imagine that you could reclaim at that cost. However you would also need to put up sheds etc. For a person with alot of capital I am sure you could do a deal if you intended to restore the house and surrounds to turn 60-80% back into farm land.

If I won 10+ million in the lotto I would have a cut at it. I might even buy a f@@king horse as well to put on it. Turn the house into a hotel, because it is in poor nick you would have leeway in the restoration and be allowed to insulate it. Do up the out buildings as apartments and maybe the wings of the house. Reclaim 50-70% of the afforested land and plant 10% of the forest as native woodland. Charge 10-15/head to access the abbey and the estate for viewing. Maybe sell 10-20 sites off it as well.

However if I won the lotto I do not think the better half would allow me to. It would be a fine retirement project if you did win enough money.

Bass Reeves

Base price wrote: »

Ours is mostly whins, blackthorn, briars and ferns. We were never in reps or any other environmental scheme.

Unless it is a designated habitat and you are getting paid for it I think the NWPS ranger is exceeding his authority. If it is designated you should be compensated and you would automatically be entitled to a REPS/ AEOS payment for it. this is an area that the department is off side on . The European commission is starting to come down hard on Ireland on this in that greening and enviormental money is not be used to compensate those that have designated land and habitats.

Base price

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Unless it is a designated habitat and you are getting paid for it I think the NWPS ranger is exceeding his authority. If it is designated you should be compensated and you would automatically be entitled to a REPS/ AEOS payment for it. this is an area that the department is off side on . The European commission is starting to come down hard on Ireland on this in that greening and enviormental money is not be used to compensate those that have designated land and habitats.

We don't receive a penny for it and never have. It's marked off as "XO" on our SFP maps.

Birdnuts

Bass Reeves wrote: »

. The European commission is starting to come down hard on Ireland on this in that greening and enviormental money is not be used to compensate those that have designated land and habitats.

About time the EU got some accountability from the Irish government on where this money is going. Too much has been doled out by the DAFM for "old rope" ie. poorly designed broad brush schemes that achieve little in terms of outcomes, while farmers on designated land and other environmentally sensitive areas continue to be underfunded for their efforts in sustainably managing such areas.

shavins

Living in rural ireland I find forestry to be the most depressing aspect of farming life here for any young person trying to get into farming. It contributes nothing to the local area. Huge swathes of roscommon leitrim mayo cavan and sligo are covered in it now, in 10 years we will be looking at Vermont USA like scenes. People in other counties don't see the stealth approach being taken by the government in planting these counties. It will destroy countless communities in these areas if it is not stopped, blanket forestry that is.

_Brian

shavins wrote: »

Living in rural ireland I find forestry to be the most depressing aspect of farming life here for any young person trying to get into farming. It contributes nothing to the local area. Huge swathes of roscommon leitrim mayo cavan and sligo are covered in it now, in 10 years we will be looking at Vermont USA like scenes. People in other counties don't see the stealth approach being taken by the government in planting these counties. It will destroy countless communities in these areas if it is not stopped, blanket forestry that is.

Truth is in swathes of these counties the rural communities are going to dwindle off anyway because farming this marginal land is more and more of a challenge with margins getting tighter and tighter. For some forestry as an option for a return of some sorts.
Beef and dairy where there is a 18/20 week winter is awfully costly and will never really compete with better parts of the country.

Kovu

A fairly good amount of land is/has been planted around me in recent times. All of the farmers are older (60+ years) and have no successive generation or else the ones they have are not interested in it. Truth be told it's probably the only way they can guarantee an income from the land for the remainder of their lives. Nobody renting land would be willing to pay the same amount as most of the places planted are marginal/rushy areas. Two farms were the best of land however, but clearly prospective tenants for leasing were few and far between with the income from suckling & beef so low.
That is the reality of farming today in these areas, there's no way of getting into dairying or larger beef operations without a massive outlay at the start to bring it into line with other farms. For too long they have been farmed to an older standard and it would require a huge leap of faith in the future of farming in Ireland to justify the costings.

shavins

_Brian wrote: »

Truth is in swathes of these counties the rural communities are going to dwindle off anyway because farming this marginal land is more and more of a challenge with margins getting tighter and tighter. For some forestry as an option for a return of some sorts.
Beef and dairy where there is a 18/20 week winter is awfully costly and will never really compete with better parts of the country.

Yes but believe it or not money is not always the best thing to pursue. Imagine being planted on all sides and having to drive 10 minutes to even get out to the real world, this is happening to a lot of people. Saying these communities will dwindle off anyway is very insulting. Why are the big grants and very lax conditions afforded to foresters not available to farmers in these areas? That would balance up the playing field instantly.
Truth is too many politicians and IFA big wigs 1. Own a lot of forestry in these counties 2. Couldn't care less about the west of Ireland. These areas were worked and were farmed for hundreds of years and only now has the governments greed and lack of interest finally switched over from not caring about them to actively killing them off. Shame on them. No part of the country exists to be planted so as to provide good figures on carbon offsetting and such bull****. A lot of irish people like yourself exhibit this attitude now of 'ah sure better them than me'

_Brian

shavins wrote: »

Yes but believe it or not money is not always the best thing to pursue. Imagine being planted on all sides and having to drive 10 minutes to even get out to the real world, this is happening to a lot of people. Saying these communities will dwindle off anyway is very insulting. Why are the big grants and very lax conditions afforded to foresters not available to farmers in these areas? That would balance up the playing field instantly.
Truth is too many politicians and IFA big wigs 1. Own a lot of forestry in these counties 2. Couldn't care less about the west of Ireland. These areas were worked and were farmed for hundreds of years and only now has the governments greed and lack of interest finally switched over from not caring about them to actively killing them off. Shame on them. No part of the country exists to be planted so as to provide good figures on carbon offsetting and such bull****. A lot of irish people like yourself exhibit this attitude now of 'ah sure better them than me'

I work and live in the areas you mentioned so it's not "better them than me".
The desire to get into farming shouldn't blinker you to the harsh reality of farming these areas. The holdings are smaller, poorer land, longer winters which makes them less profitable, or not profitable at all.

Yes they have been farmed for hundreds of years but the vast Majority of this was as subsistence farming which has no relation to current commercial farming business.

Kovu described exactly what's happening. Older farmers are looking to forestry as a way to provide an income going forward where they have no family or no family interested. We're landlocked with such bachelors at home, one has already started planting, one is in hospital for the second time this year with stroke and I can see him go the same route.

Surely forestry will be important for the country for environmental reasons and better plant this marginal land than prime decent farming land.

I'm not here to insult anyone, but many farmers don't like the ugly truth that the future holds for them and their land.

Capercaillie

_Brian wrote: »

Surely forestry will be important for the country for environmental reasons and better plant this marginal land than prime decent farming land.

.

Planting with non-native stika spruce monocultures is not environmental good.

ganmo

shavins wrote: »

Yes but believe it or not money is not always the best thing to pursue. Imagine being planted on all sides and having to drive 10 minutes to even get out to the real world, this is happening to a lot of people. Saying these communities will dwindle off anyway is very insulting. Why are the big grants and very lax conditions afforded to foresters not available to farmers in these areas? That would balance up the playing field instantly.
Truth is too many politicians and IFA big wigs 1. Own a lot of forestry in these counties 2. Couldn't care less about the west of Ireland. These areas were worked and were farmed for hundreds of years and only now has the governments greed and lack of interest finally switched over from not caring about them to actively killing them off. Shame on them. No part of the country exists to be planted so as to provide good figures on carbon offsetting and such bull****. A lot of irish people like yourself exhibit this attitude now of 'ah sure better them than me'

yes money is not always the best thing to pursue but you have to keep an eye on it of what you have been pursuing would be for naught.

the grants issue is a mess and will continue to be, the CAP budget will not be increasing and with the EU looking to take in turkey and who ever else their farmers will take another slice of it.

I reckon in the future I'll have a portion of the land planted and/or windmills, either is going to piss off a section of the population but they won't thank me for not doing either

ps I'm not near pension age

croot

shavins wrote: »

Yes but believe it or not money is not always the best thing to pursue...

I also live in one of the areas mentioned and I did plant 20 acres of marginal land a few years ago. I get an annual premium of just over €3000 for this for twenty years. I spent 4 years trying to make this land productive by draining, fertilising, liming and finally realised I was kidding myself. The land was actually costing me money. So for you to say money is not the best thing to pursue is factitious.

shavins wrote: »

Imagine being planted on all sides and having to drive 10 minutes to even get out to the real world, this is happening to a lot of people. Saying these communities will dwindle off anyway is very insulting. Why are the big grants and very lax conditions afforded to foresters not available to farmers in these areas? That would balance up the playing field instantly.

What big grants and lax conditions are these? The establishment grant is for a crop. What crop would you prefer to get an establishment grant for? The reason forestry is encouraged is because we are well below EU levels of forest cover. It just so happens that our counties are suited to it.

shavins wrote: »

Truth is too many politicians and IFA big wigs 1. Own a lot of forestry in these counties 2. Couldn't care less about the west of Ireland. These areas were worked and were farmed for hundreds of years and only now has the governments greed and lack of interest finally switched over from not caring about them to actively killing them off. Shame on them. No part of the country exists to be planted so as to provide good figures on carbon offsetting and such bull****. A lot of irish people like yourself exhibit this attitude now of 'ah sure better them than me'

These areas were farmed on a subsistence level barely feeding a family and certainly not providing a proper income by todays standards. You have to face facts. Rural depopulation is caused by more than just forestry. Most young people aspire to more than the drudgery of scratching out a living at the mercy of beef factories and supermarkets. I know I wont be encouraging my kids to do this. They will be highly encouraged in a forceful way into getting an education. What they do then is their own business.

Markcheese

I'd prefer if farmers wanting to get into forestry could get extra assistance for training in forestry... so that more of the work could be done themselves and the money could stay in the community.. and best value could be got for the farmer from the thinnings ect.

fepper

Markcheese wrote: »

I'd prefer if farmers wanting to get into forestry could get extra assistance for training in forestry... so that more of the work could be done themselves and the money could stay in the community.. and best value could be got for the farmer from the thinnings ect.

<br />
<br />
Great idea as those forestry companies are ripping off the system

djmc

A lot of marginal land forestry is planted on would be known as high nature value land in the UK and Europe where there are grants or a subsidy for protecting the plants and animals in the area by using traditional farming practice and local breeds of cattle ponies or sheep.
Ireland is only starting to come around to this European way of thinking in locally led schemes
like the burren and ,black stairs and hen harrier schemes promised .
Those kinda schemes along with walking and cycling trails where appropriate would do more for the local economy and community than forestry.
Even agro forestry is practically unheard of in Ireland yet.
Wind turbines and solar energy also have a part to play in the right areas.
I would think 99% of lads who plant do so for financial reasons rather than a love of silka spruce.
All people need is an alternative not to plant that will generate an income.
Otherwise we will exterminate a lot of already rare and endangered species we have and be left with a cut down forest in thirty years and nothing else.

freedominacup

Capercaillie wrote: »

Planting with non-native stika spruce monocultures is not environmental good.

But there should be plenty of encouragement for establishing native mixed species plantations across the country.