No quitten we're whelan on to chitchat 11

NcdJd

Say my name wrote: »

They're looking for funding for themselves.

Now it's marriage doesn't matter, no pressure to have a family, you've to save the planet, have a place in the countryside, raise your own food because farmers poison you, plant trees and save the environment.

They'll have a dose of reality when look out in the morning and all their crops have been eaten by pigeons and rabbits and the septic tank thats no longer visible in their garden has backed up and needs to be emptied / unblocked.

Pie in the sky utopian living ignoring the day to day realities. Some might make a go of it but it's hard work and I think most of the people interested in this have never done a real hard days physical work in their lives.

Say my name

NcdJd wrote: »

They'll have a dose of reality when look out in the morning and all their crops have been eaten by pigeons and rabbits and the septic tank thats no longer visible in their garden has backed up and needs to be emptied / unblocked.

Pie in the sky utopian living ignoring the day to day realities. Some might make a go of it but it's hard work and I think most of the people interested in this have never done a real hard days physical work in their lives.

Doesn't really matter as they'll have PhDs in nature conservation and be paid under CAP to tell other people how to farm.

There's a definite disconnect in food production.
If it were left to some vocal naysayers. You'd have starvation in care homes and the urban population.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Oops, looks like forestry won't be the panacea for urban emissions after all.
https://twitter.com/farmersjournal/status/1322150510288318464?s=19

_Brian

Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: »

Oops, looks like forestry won't be the panacea for urban emissions after all.
https://twitter.com/farmersjournal/status/1322150510288318464?s=19

The right forestry in the right place is. We’ve all long known that Irish forestry is driven to feed cheap materials, keep forestry companies flowing in cash and greenwash government.

farmersfriend

kollegeknight wrote: »

Our postman dropped of treat bags for all the children in the community.

Such an amazing man. He gave Easter eggs the last lockdown. And the likes of my mam on her own, he gave a box of sweets.

A real community hero in my eyes.

That's lovely, we have a great postman too, if he has to come to the house wit something that's too big for the postbox he has treats for the dog,

_Brian

Say my name wrote: »

Doesn't really matter as they'll have PhDs in nature conservation and be paid under CAP to tell other people how to farm.

There's a definite disconnect in food production.
If it were left to some vocal naysayers. You'd have starvation in care homes and the urban population.

The disconnect in food, it’s production and the work involved in producing it is shocking. It’s good for urban people to plant what they can and even failing miserably is an important lesson that it’s not just throw out some seeds and then next week you have a garden of veg to pick.

Buford T. Justice XIX

_Brian wrote: »

The right forestry in the right place is. We’ve all long known that Irish forestry is driven to feed cheap materials, keep forestry companies flowing in cash and greenwash government.

It even worse than that, Brian. Tbh, all I can see is trees being used to sequester carbon by paying the farmers for 15 years and then not allowing any management or return on the crop through sales by creating a bottleneck for felling licenses.

So ties up land indefinitely through misappropriation of privately owned land to greenwash figures elsewhere. It might be a harsh description but I think it's pretty accurate.

Dinzee Conlee

Nekarsulm wrote: »

I see the Green Party are pushing to abolish the CAP.
I particularly like their choice of photos, seems round baling Hay or Straw is the problem.
No doubt we should be cocking it and building a reek...

[img][/img]

I thought the CAP deal was done now?

30% towards green/environmental items, and the remainder in what we call the BPS?

blue5000

_Brian wrote: »

The right forestry in the right place is. We’ve all long known that Irish forestry is driven to feed cheap materials, keep forestry companies flowing in cash and greenwash government.

Forestry only absorbs carbon when the trees are alive. Trees planted on peat with drains and mounds only start to be a net sequester of carbon at year 15, this is because of the soil disturbance at planting releasing more carbon than young trees absorb. If they are harvested at year 30 then softwoods absorbing carbon is a bit of a joke.

Say my name

Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: »

Oops, looks like forestry won't be the panacea for urban emissions after all.
https://twitter.com/farmersjournal/status/1322150510288318464?s=19

In the same breath the dept will tell you that ruminant farming is a souce of greenhouse gases on that type soil too.

Make no mistake this is all a play to ban farming and now forestry on soil with any type of peat in it's make up.

Farmers hoping for the few quid as compensation could be in for a shock when the stick is used instead with land designations.

All this means is mineral soils will only be allowed forestry and farming.
The big winners be the naturists and the government hitting easy targets with emissons accounting with zero work involved.
There's no win out of this for the climate as there'll be the methane release from these soils when they are restored to their post carboniferous state.

The day of real world figures is gone it's deciding what course of action you desire and then getting the study and figures to match.

_Brian

Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: »

It even worse than that, Brian. Tbh, all I can see is trees being used to sequester carbon by paying the farmers for 15 years and then not allowing any management or return on the crop through sales by creating a bottleneck for felling licenses.

So ties up land indefinitely through misappropriation of privately owned land to greenwash figures elsewhere. It might be a harsh description but I think it's pretty accurate.

Have always had the same opinion regarding locking away land. Current forestry system is only beneficial to forestry companies and lads within 15 years of the grave.

Anyone with even a medium term view isn’t being accommodated by the system.

kollegeknight

Scanned the cattle. With the cow that died. I only had 9 to check. All in calf. Got the few bull weanlings Squeeze too.

Another job off the list.

Say my name

We'll have Yellowstone in Ireland yet!!


I suppose we already have the Ford Rangers.
Anyone want the job of Yogi bear?

_Brian

Say my name wrote: »

We'll have Yellowstone in Ireland yet!!


I suppose we already have the Ford Rangers.
Anyone want the job of Yogi bear?

Getting my hair sheared tonight so that will rule me out.

Say my name

_Brian wrote: »

Getting my hair sheared tonight so that will rule me out.

You can be that shaved fella who lost his grandfather.

Good loser

See in Page 5 this week's Journal the charge for an Irish Water connection to a new build rural house in the south of the country was €68,000!!
The mains pipe was passing 6 feet from the entrance.


If true - astonishing. Is there a catch? Or are people like this paying for the 'no water charges' fiasco?

jaymla627

Good loser wrote: »

See in Page 5 this week's Journal the charge for an Irish Water connection to a new build rural house in the south of the country was €68,000!!
The mains pipe was passing 6 feet from the entrance.


If true - astonishing. Is there a catch? Or are people like this paying for the 'no water charges' fiasco?

Irish water crew where fixing a leak today on public road, beside our farm entrance, not content with blocking the driveway for the day, they also decided to open a gate beside main road with 60 heifer weanlings in it to turn their lorries and never bother closing it, was pure luck I got held up so only got around to mealing them after the pricks had finished up,

Water John

Say my name wrote: »

In the same breath the dept will tell you that ruminant farming is a souce of greenhouse gases on that type soil too.

Make no mistake this is all a play to ban farming and now forestry on soil with any type of peat in it's make up.

Farmers hoping for the few quid as compensation could be in for a shock when the stick is used instead with land designations.

All this means is mineral soils will only be allowed forestry and farming.
The big winners be the naturists and the government hitting easy targets with emissons accounting with zero work involved.
There's no win out of this for the climate as there'll be the methane release from these soils when they are restored to their post carboniferous state.

The day of real world figures is gone it's deciding what course of action you desire and then getting the study and figures to match.

This will make the countryside a very interesting place. Will be a bit nippy in the winter though.

Say my name

Water John wrote: »

This will make the countryside a very interesting place. Will be a bit nippy in the winter though.

For the final time WJ.

Clothes are not an essential item!!

Water John

As Des Morris called us, 'the naked ape'.

gozunda

Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: »

It even worse than that, Brian. Tbh, all I can see is trees being used to sequester carbon by paying the farmers for 15 years and then not allowing any management or return on the crop through sales by creating a bottleneck for felling licenses.

So ties up land indefinitely through misappropriation of privately owned land to greenwash figures elsewhere. It might be a harsh description but I think it's pretty accurate.

The sad thing is that these forests have very little environmental value as they are and left to fall down will do nothing for any long term carbon sequestration.

Unfortunately those who are depending on them for pension returns ( and a fair few pension companies have bought in to forestry) will mean that in 10-20 years times these pension investments are going to worth fuq all...

patsy_mccabe

https://twitter.com/i/status/1322117933519220736

Hard Knocks

Say my name wrote: »

You can be that shaved fella who lost his grandfather.

Best fit as with Brian having horses he’d be our Rodeo expert
Biggest question is which of our girls would best fit as Beth?

Birdnuts

gozunda wrote: »

The sad thing is that these forests have very little environmental value as they are and left to fall down will do nothing for any long term carbon sequestration.

Unfortunately those who are depending on them for pension returns ( and a fair few pension companies have bought in to forestry) will mean that in 10-20 years times these pension investments are going to worth fuq all...

Forestry policies in this country have been a slow car crash for decades at this stage - even the government now admits it with the forestry service itself effectively been abolished and absorbed back into DAFM recently.

gozunda

Birdnuts wrote: »

Forestry policies in this country have been a slow car crash for decades at this stage - even the government now admits it with the forestry service itself effectively been abolished and absorbed back into DAFM recently.

I remember once having to ring them on a Friday about some forestry information I needed and was informed - that the dept didn't take calls on a Friday. When I queried this I was told it was because they were busy and therefore wouldn't answer phonecalls. Some feking business model and certainly not a 'civil' service ...

Water John

Sitka Spruce may have been the wrong choice, In NZ they went with Douglas Fir.
Like planting Escolonia instead of Leylandii hedgeing.

Birdnuts

Water John wrote: »

Sitka Spruce may have been the wrong choice, In NZ they went with Douglas Fir.
Like planting Escolonia instead of Leylandii hedgeing.

NZ are now spending vast amounts of money saving whats left of their natural heritage from invasive species - actually reminds me that Norway recently classed Sitka Spruce as a "destructive invasive species".

Birdnuts

gozunda wrote: »

I remember once having to ring them on a Friday about some forestry information I needed and I was told - that the dept didn't take calls on a Friday. When I queried this I was told it was because they were busy and therefore wouldn't answer phonecalls. Some feking business model and certainly not a 'civil' service ...

You should try getting hold of the crowd in it that are now "working from home" - even the politicians can't get reach them!!

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

I remember once having to ring them on a Friday about some forestry information I needed and I was told - that the dept didn't take calls on a Friday. When I queried this I was told it was because they were busy and therefore wouldn't answer phonecalls. Some feking business model and certainly not a 'civil' service ...

I rang about a scheme, I can't remember whether it was SFP or ANC, but I could tell I was being transferred with the tone on the phone ring. A voice answers, Hello *whatever* section.... Oh! Sorry, I was looking for XYZ section.... You might as well talk to me, they never answer the phone... :rolleyes:

whelan2

Deleted User wrote: »

I rang about a scheme, I can't remember whether it was SFP or ANC, but I could tell I was being transferred with the tone on the phone ring. A voice answers, Hello *whatever* section.... Oh! Sorry, I was looking for XYZ section.... You might as well talk to me, they never answer the phone... :rolleyes:

I remember ringing someone a few years ago and her brother answered and said there's no one home