nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Are you still using turf?

[Deleted User]

You can't move on the country by-roads, this time of year, without being stuck behind a Ford 4600 pulling a load of turf.

This year, for the first year since we got off Cromwell's boat, the Miltiades family have no turf. I will miss the turf this year, the sweet, damp smell of it in the house, and wafting up the lane. I'll miss the crumbly, craggy feeling of handling it, the great heat out of it, turf as a topic of conversation for visitors; turf mould for the garden beds. We will never find a use for all these empty 10,10,20 bags.

The Department and the EU habitats directive have finally closed-off the bog at home, it's strictly for the skylark, the grouse, and the meadow pipit, now. It's only fair I suppose, but it's sad to face into a winter with no turf.

Are you still bringing home the turf?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

cgcsb

Graces7 wrote: »

There is a massive difference in population numbers between rural and urban that negates your argument and there is very little public transport out here. eg we have three buses a week. And sparse population

city traffic is constant and heavy

I'm wondering why you're continuing with this clearly ridiculous line of reasoning. Dublin's canal cordon revealed tat 70% of people enter the centre by sustainable mode, public transport, walking and cycling. If those people lived in rural areas they'd all drive long distances to work, i.e. an unsustainable mode. Why is this hard for you to understand? More and more people are living in cities now, therfore reducing their emissions from transport.

cgcsb

Peatys wrote: »

€min wage/hr per person for time spent bringing it home and it becomes the most inefficient source of heat available.

I guess not everyone footing turf is getting their €10 per hour.

cgcsb

Graces7 wrote: »

Land changes; we adapt.The land cannot and should not be treated as some kind of folk museum. Nature has her own ways and some posters appreciate this.

nature has yet to develop a defence against turf hoppers. Perhaps some teredactyl like creature will evolve and decapitate the humans footing the turf. :rolleyes:

cgcsb

Graces7 wrote: »

lol... The turf I buy at a very small cost as I am too disabled to cut it myself, is dug in the next field by a neighbour who cuts his own and a bit extra. For their winter heating. He does me a great kindness.

urban/rural divide..

Good thing you're not a 'blow in' all you'd get is curtain twitching, one word answers and thinly veiled accusations of immorality

cgcsb

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Actually no, it is about preserving habitats. Sprawling masses of concrete weren't exactly the preferred living quarters for the corncrake and hen harrier last time I checked... Im simply asking what about those habitats? Surely all construction should be forced to go up in cities instead of out, from now on?

Yes, that should be the case also.

EmmetSpiceland

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Always took you for a culchie, Emmet.

I can't say this hasn't strained my admiration for you.

Didn't it ever occur to blame the smog on the cars, and not our God given turf?

Honestly, Emmet. I expected better. Tell us a toilet tale and all shall be forgiven.

No, that’s a scurrilous thought, Dublin “bred and buttered”, as they do be sayin’.

I blame the smog mostly on the coal but I worry about burning anything these days that could lead to the “pea soupers” returning.

One thing I will say in defence of the turf and that’s that it does give off a lovely smell. I’m out “west” at the moment and have visited a couple of cottages, you know the types, no TV, main living room with four rooms off it and a big open fire with a heap of turf burning all day. Mixed with the damp it gives quite a sweet “musty” scent to the dwelling.

I’m glad your admiration hasn’t been strained, that is reassuring as I know you “country” folk can have a bit of a “chip” on your shoulder when it comes to us Dubs. But do be careful not to “strain” anything else. I’d recommend adding a few prunes to your porridge to avoid this.

[Deleted User]

Peatys wrote: »

€min wage/hr per person for time spent bringing it home and it becomes the most inefficient source of heat available.

I never get people who put a cost of their time like this for stuff they are doing outside of work, do you spend all your spare time doing things that are making you money? Do you put a cost on the time you spend cooking dinner and decide it’s cheaper to buy takeaway as if I paid myself 10 euro an hour cooking my dinner it would cost more :rolleyes:

Stuff you do in your own time shouldn’t be looked at on a cost/hour basis. If I cut down a few trees, chop them up and burn them the only cost is a small bit of petrol for the chainsaw that’s the bottom line. Nobody sits down and says “well if I was paying myself 10 euro an hour that would have cost me 80 euro so that timber isn’t really free”. Nonsense.

cgcsb wrote: »

I'm wondering why you're continuing with this clearly ridiculous line of reasoning. Dublin's canal cordon revealed tat 70% of people enter the centre by sustainable mode, public transport, walking and cycling. If those people lived in rural areas they'd all drive long distances to work, i.e. an unsustainable mode. Why is this hard for you to understand? More and more people are living in cities now, therfore reducing their emissions from transport.

Who said driving is unsustainable? It’s as sustainable as any other form of transport. As for the love for city living and packing people into small houses on top of each other, no thanks.

[Deleted User]

cgcsb wrote: »

I'm wondering why you're continuing with this clearly ridiculous line of reasoning. Dublin's canal cordon revealed tat 70% of people enter the centre by sustainable mode, public transport, walking and cycling.

And Look! A barge comes bringing from Athy and other far flung towns mythologies - Kavanagh,

(Those mythologies were turf, cgcsb, our dark, national memory)

Have some respect for Patrick Kavanagh and the rural people of Ireland before you mention the canals in objection to the bogs of Ireland. We heated your tenements.

I have set my face to ruddy/ highly frustrated.

d8491prj5boyvg

Graces7 wrote: »

The land cannot and should not be treated as some kind of folk museum.

Yes it should.

gozunda

Caroline Obedient Rivalry wrote: »

Yes it should.

What all of it?

d8491prj5boyvg

gozunda wrote: »

What all of it?

All of the bog, yes.

[Deleted User]

Caroline Obedient Rivalry wrote: »

All of the bog, yes.

What do you mean by folk museum?

Surely it's those of us who enjoy a working bog who don't want to turn it into a folk museum?

A bog is a living, breathing thing. Human interaction with the bog (and on the bog) is part of its life.

Maybe this was your point, and I have taken you up wrong? I sure don't see how anyone who loves and *actually uses* the bogs thinks of them as a folk museum.

Dakota Dan

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But turf is so much cheaper. Cost really should be considered when discussing efficiency.

Not wanting to split hairs, but that chart is really about efficacy, not efficiency.

You're literally comparing 1 tonne of turf to 1 tonne of oil, while ignoring cost -- a huge factor.

They couldn’t charge a carbon tax on it so banned it instead.

beggars_bush

Kids get a sense of an honest days work when saving turf

Honest, as in there's no monetary gain from it

Ush1

Graces7 wrote: »

There is a massive difference in population numbers between rural and urban that negates your argument and there is very little public transport out here. eg we have three buses a week. And sparse population

city traffic is constant and heavy

It's per capita, urbanisation is much more efficient and eco friendly for numerous reasons.

Graces7

Ush1 wrote: »

It's per capita, urbanisation is much more efficient and eco friendly for numerous reasons.

such as?

Graces7

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What do you mean by folk museum?

Surely it's those of us who enjoy a working bog who don't want to turn it into a folk museum?

A bog is a living, breathing thing. Human interaction with the bog (and on the bog) is part of its life.

Maybe this was your point, and I have taken you up wrong? I sure don't see how anyone who loves and *actually uses* the bogs thinks of them as a folk museum.

I used the term folk museum as an extreme term, never thinking it would be anything but ridiculed and denied... Life and nature move forwards and change; they are not fossilised. You cannot halt progression and trying to do so does more damage than accepting and looking to the future and there are many conservation areas already
eg

http://www.irishbogrestorationproject.ie/project_sites/glencullin-lower-mayo.html

In Mayo we have the largest bog areas in Ireland also

and we have many who use the bog respectfully and cut it carefully and responsibly for the love they have for it.

MayoAreMagic

El Tarangu wrote: »

There are all sorts of restrictions society places on the use of private property; if I were to buy the land next door to you and try to open an incinerator or start a strip-mining operation, I probably wouldn't be allowed to.

They dont take away the entire purpose of having the property though... If you buy a shop, the council wont turn around and tell you, actually we have decided that that shop is no longer a shop and you cant do anything with it, but you can keep it anyway. That is effectively what is happening. Dont forget the reason these people invested in this land in the first place - it was sold to them to fulfill a purpose, even a business for some. It's simply unfair treatment

cgcsb

Saoirse Tasty Coat wrote: »

Who said driving is unsustainable?

:rolleyes: yeah yeah yeah, your views are well known on the topic.

cgcsb

Graces7 wrote: »

such as?

more efficient travel, more efficient heating, smaller spaces, shared spaces, more efficient provision of services, shared services.

Ush1

Graces7 wrote: »

such as?

Economies of scale, higher density, easier and cheaper to power, supply water to, sewage systems, less roads, public transport, less erosion of countryside and habitat, etc...

Badly Drunk Boy

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Dafuq is spruss?

I have never heard of this SPRUSS. It sounds like a German high-speed rail.

It is mowl, it will always be mowl.

Omg this is what rural areas used to go to war over, isn't it?

In these here parts, it's turf mull. Maybe you just have one of them funny accents, and that's what you mean. :pac:

Graces7

[QUOTE=cgcsb;

did you say something? Odd a blank page

Graces7

Ush1 wrote: »

Economies of scale, higher density, easier and cheaper to power, supply water to, sewage systems, less roads, public transport, less erosion of countryside and habitat, etc...

Greater volume of consumption outweighs all these.

The very existence of a city erodes environment and destroys habitat 100 % Air quality especially.

Ush1

Graces7 wrote: »

Greater volume of consumption outweighs all these.

The very existence of a city erodes environment and destroys habitat 100 % Air quality especially.

What do you mean greater volume of consumption?

This is per capita, it's clearly more efficient having a high density in a smaller area than spread out throughout the countryside.

Cities destroy habitat because people need a place to live but they destroy a much smaller amount than ribbon development and one off housing. A block of apartments is easier to service with roads, infrastructure, power, heat etc...

mammychicken

My father always used turf ash from the fire to heap on his rhubharb growing in the garden, it was some crop, we'd chop it when it was ripe and have stewed rhubarb and custard for desert, now I have to buy it in the shop, miss those days....

gozunda

mammychicken wrote: »

My father always used turf ash from the fire to heap on his rhubharb growing in the garden, it was some crop, we'd chop it when it was ripe and have stewed rhubarb and custard for desert, now I have to buy it in the shop, miss those days....

Probably flown in from Venezuela ....

Not at you btw - but I do have to laugh at anyone who proposes that cities are somehow 'eco friendly.

Not only do high density urban areas involve the total annihilation of all natural ecosystem and habitats - they concentration of pollutants means that emissions and discharges to the wider environment are a significant and persistent source of toxic pollution.

High density living is not only bad for humans- it certainly does nothing for ecosystems and wildlife which depend on them . That said most development in Dublin and other urban areas in the last couple of decades have been on Greenfield sites with vast areas of detached houses which are spreading at an alarming rate into what was once countryside and all significantly dependent on private transport. See fek all criticism of this tbh .

s7ryf3925pivug

Cities can be more efficient.

If you have an excellent public transport system and provision for cyclists then obviously that beats people commuting in cars.

If you have heavy traffic in gridlock and cyclists choking on car fumes then that is not ideal though.

El Tarangu

gozunda wrote: »

... I do have to laugh at anyone who proposes that cities are somehow 'eco friendly.

Not only do high density urban areas involve the total annihilation of all natural ecosystem and habitats - they concentration of pollutants means that emissions and discharges to the wider environment are a significant and persistent source of toxic pollution.

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/agriculture-and-septic-tanks-source-of-dangerous-e-coli-found-in-40pc-of-water-sites-37581386.html

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the current sanitation set-up in rural areas' involves people literally befouling one another's drinking water, so I'm not sure how 'eco friendly' that is.

s7ryf3925pivug

El Tarangu wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/agriculture-and-septic-tanks-source-of-dangerous-e-coli-found-in-40pc-of-water-sites-37581386.html

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the current sanitation set-up in rural areas' involves people literally befouling one another's drinking water, so I'm not sure how 'eco friendly' that is.

I'm going to admit that I'm a lot more conscious of what I put down my drain since I moved somewhere that it all ends up filtering into the soil in my back garden.

Modern bicocycle wastewater systems are pretty good if they work right... Not sure why I pay taxes for other people to be connected to mains wastewater systems while I'm also liable if my private one malfunctions, but there you go.