Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

EU Biodiversity strategy 2030

  • 27-05-2020 10:50pm
    #1
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭


    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1590574123338&uri=CELEX:52020DC0380

    Apart from being a truly thrilling read... I haven't finished it yet... There are significant concerns within this document for any farmer with "peatland", and I would think wet/heavy land. The document proposes to increase protection % (layman's terms add in a significant number of hectares to be newly designated), but more concerning is the term "strict protection" - when Googled, the definition has gems like "where human visitation, use and impacts are strictly controlled and limited". Think that over for a moment.

    https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-area-categories

    And from the document itself:
    "Strict protection does not necessarily mean the area is not accessible to humans, but leaves natural
    processes essentially undisturbed to respect the areas’ ecological requirements."

    What's the definition of rewilding.

    Must read on now to find out "whodunnit".


«134567…11

Comments

  • #2
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I see Minister Noonan has contradicted IFA on their statement that no new designations will be brought into law.

    Farmers on all peatlands, in all provinces and all counties in the state need to be concerned about this. No use complaining the stable door wasn't bolted after the facts ladies & gents.

    https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/noonan-i-did-not-make-definitive-statement-about-further-designations

    FYI

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=113951008


  • #3
    _Brian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,617 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    I don’t know.

    I constantly see government critiqued for trying to solve the environmental and biodiversity disaster via taxation, that’s been regularly voiced here.

    And yet when they try something else there is someone to stomp on that too !

    I haven’t read the document or much about it. But we’ve decimated peat areas in this country and it’s a total shame. And still the ads on draining/reseeding bog are appearing.

    Seems by what your saying it may or may not affect us at home so I must look at it. But I wouldn’t be down on it before seeing more data on what they are working to achieve.


  • #4
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    _Brian wrote: »
    I don’t know.

    I constantly see government critiqued for trying to solve the environmental and biodiversity disaster via taxation, that’s been regularly voiced here.

    And yet when they try something else there is someone to stomp on that too !

    I haven’t read the document or much about it. But we’ve decimated peat areas in this country and it’s a total shame. And still the ads on draining/reseeding bog are appearing.

    Seems by what your saying it may or may not affect us at home so I must look at it. But I wouldn’t be down on it before seeing more data on what they are working to achieve.

    That's the argument they want you to fall into Brian. No one want's a ****, poisoned environment. But, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

    92% of habitats in designated areas have failed to improve OR gone backwards since the introduction of current designations over 20 years ago. That's straight from the NPWS.

    Designations. Do. Not. Work.

    They achieve some things, devaluing your land, restricting your income generating ability, restricting maintenence of your land, alienating landowners (and others in the community once they see road maintenence/upgrade failing planning permission etc.). Currently there are 39 Arcs, activities requiring consent, a mixture of which are applied to designated land.

    The reason designations don't work is that they're imposed, they're a dictation from on high. For environmental improvement to happen then stakeholders need to be brought along together willingly not at gunpoint. The gun in this case is the existing designations are in law, you may be brought before the courts for breaking them.

    If you have peatland, pristine or drained way back when regardless, inform yourself on "strictly protected" designation.


  • #5
    NcdJd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 994 ✭✭✭NcdJd


    Will read later. Will there be anything in it about soy and palm oil imports which are destroying rainforests on the other side of the planet i wonder.

    I noticed one thing already about sustainable food production techniques but also in the same sentence is affordable food. How the fck does that work?

    Maybe I'm overly negative and completely wrong but I have a feeling the EU would be happy if all food came from Brazil and just let agriculture die out and turn agricultural land in the eu into greenways and forest trails. Again probably off the wall on that thought sorry.

    Edit, I've a bad tooth so grumpy as fck.


  • #6
    _Brian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,617 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    NcdJd wrote: »
    Will read later. Will there be anything in it about soy and palm oil imports which are destroying rainforests on the other side of the planet i wonder.

    I noticed one thing already about sustainable food production techniques but also in the same sentence is affordable food. How the fck does that work?

    Maybe I'm overly negative and completely wrong but I have a feeling the EU would be happy if all food came from Brazil and just let agriculture die out and turn agricultural land in the eu into greenways and forest trails. Again probably off the wall on that thought sorry.

    Edit, I've a bad tooth so grumpy as fck.


    Three things.

    1. Yea there seems to be a willingness to export food production and associate problem To other countries so we’ve no food production associated problems to deal with.

    2. “Whataboutery is dangerous, yes other countries have issues but we can’t sit back and say we shouldn’t make an effort because someone else isn’t.

    3. Clove Oil for the tooth. Comes on wee bottle from those health food shops. Wet cotton will with it and get it in on the tooth. It will take away a massive amount of discomfort and pain. It was used by dentists before modern anaesthetic was available.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    NcdJd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 994 ✭✭✭NcdJd


    _Brian wrote: »
    Third things.

    1. Yea there seems to be a willingness to export food production and associate problem To other countries so we’ve no food production associated problems to deal with.

    2. “Whataboutery is dangerous, yes other countries have issues but we can’t sit back and say we shouldn’t make an effort because someone else isn’t.

    3. Clove Oil for the tooth. Comes on wee bottle from those health food shops. Wet cotton will with it and get it in on the tooth. It will take away a massive amount of discomfort and pain. It was used by dentists before modern anaesthetic was available.


    Thanks Brian have an appointment in an hour. I do agree 100% on number 2. Alot of whataboutery in my post. Will read later.


  • #8
    Say my name
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,763 ✭✭✭✭Say my name


    Haven't read it either but the point on farming on peat soils being restricted and possibly stopped seems to be a low hanging fruit being looked at.
    I've noticed it more from posters on social media with links to the epa and on the teagasc webinar series.

    It's a get out jail card to meet carbon sequestration targets without actually benefiting the landowner. To me it looks like the rod is going to be used to benefit figures for the government.
    To get peat soils bringing down carbon you need them growing sphaghum moss and waterlogged in an anaerobic environment. Not conductive with any type of farming bar growing fraughans.


  • #9
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Say my name wrote: »
    Haven't read it either but the point on farming on peat soils being restricted and possibly stopped seems to be a low hanging fruit being looked at.
    I've noticed it more from posters on social media with links to the epa and on the teagasc webinar series.

    It's a get out jail card to meet carbon sequestration targets without actually benefiting the landowner. To me it looks like the rod is going to be used to benefit figures for the government.
    To get peat soils bringing down carbon you need them growing sphaghum moss and waterlogged in an anaerobic environment. Not conductive with any type of farming bar growing fraughans.

    I know a bit more than I'm letting on, but you're not far wrong.

    If we consider 92% of the habitats have gone backwards or failed to improve then more system is hardly the right answer. But, it is the cheap answer "to be seen to be doing something", In another 20 years a similar failure rate will be decryed.

    One of the worst aspects of this is it's been twisted a little to say, if you're against designations well then you're obviously against a good environment! I would think the opposite, that it shows these designations have failed because they're heavy handed blunt instruments.

    Surely a voluntary scheme which would be attractive to landowners would be a much better way of getting "buy in". Again a failure of imagination in Government.

    Most of my land is designated already. I can safely say there will be no point crying over it after it happens, possibly even sooner once criteria have been written.

    As an example there was an article in the Indo lately, a man that runs sheepdog demonstrations. In it he says something like it would have been impossible for him to build any kind of centre for tourists due to the designations. Constrained in farming income, constrained in diversification, plus devaluation of his existing land.


  • #10
    _Brian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,617 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Will be easily pushed through as here is public appetite for change plus the general public beleive farms are paid enough that the government should be able to dictate terms.

    Don’t know of the details but the constant draining, reseeding, stripping, cutting and planting of peat lands has left the public easily brought along on a measure like this.


  • #11
    blue5000
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,696 Mod ✭✭✭✭blue5000


    Haven't read it yet HQ, but isn't it a bit ironic that a semi-state body stripped off a lot of peat and burnt it at 30% efficiency to produce electricity. How much CO2 did that release?

    If the seat's wet, sit on yer hat, a cool head is better than a wet ar5e.



  • Advertisement
  • #12
    jaymla627
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,755 ✭✭✭jaymla627


    blue5000 wrote: »
    Haven't read it yet HQ, but isn't it a bit ironic that a semi-state body stripped off a lot of peat and burnt it at 30% efficiency to produce electricity. How much CO2 did that release?

    To be fair it underpinned alot of Midlands communities for decades, in providing employment and floating money around the local economies, what I cant understand was the top brass managements haste in shutting down all peat harvesting operations for, they have little to no revenue streams that will replace what they are mothballing, their own jobs going forward will be on thin ice as you'll basically have a basket case company that's penniless


  • #13
    _Brian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,617 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    blue5000 wrote: »
    Haven't read it yet HQ, but isn't it a bit ironic that a semi-state body stripped off a lot of peat and burnt it at 30% efficiency to produce electricity. How much CO2 did that release?

    Developing countries do whatever is needed to get a leg up and progress.

    What is important is that we as a developed modern country can let that history go and move on from the practice.

    Bog destruction either through drainage, cutting turf or stripping peat for bedding or gardening needs to stop.


  • #14
    Dinzee Conlee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Dinzee Conlee


    blue5000 wrote: »
    Haven't read it yet HQ, but isn't it a bit ironic that a semi-state body stripped off a lot of peat and burnt it at 30% efficiency to produce electricity. How much CO2 did that release?
    .

    I can see the OPs point that designations don’t work. But then I also see lads protesting about not being able to cut turf - and lads ignoring bans on turf cutting and the guards having to be called...

    So it seems bogs do need protection in this country... we are too keen to cut / drain / burn them...
    Who should protect them?

    I am not sure I agree with the approach being taken, but I can certainly understand it...


  • #15
    Neddyusa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,052 ✭✭✭Neddyusa


    Dinzee Conlee wrote: »
    .

    I can see the OPs point that designations don’t work. But then I also see lads protesting about not being able to cut turf - and lads ignoring bans on turf cutting and the guards having to be called...

    So it seems bogs do need protection in this country... we are too keen to cut / drain / burn them...
    Who should protect them?

    I am not sure I agree with the approach being taken, but I can certainly understand it...


    There's two distinct issues here,
    1. Restrictions on farmed peat soils - which will have an enormous impact on farming in some parts of the country
    and
    2. Restrictions on non- farmed raised or blanket bogs. These have very limited impacts on farming.

    I think what the OP is referring to is 1. rather than 2.
    So restrictions on farmland rather than "bog"


  • #16
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    _Brian wrote: »
    Will be easily pushed through as here is public appetite for change plus the general public beleive farms are paid enough that the government should be able to dictate terms.

    Don’t know of the details but the constant draining, reseeding, stripping, cutting and planting of peat lands has left the public easily brought along on a measure like this.

    The "strictly protected" designation, 10%+ of the land area of this country will fall under that, has severe implications. Let me contrast by giving an opinion of someone intimately involved on t'other side from farmers as it were. Some sections of a frankly dangerous N class road failed planning permission due to being in an SAC area. If the same N class road, like it or not a piece of national infrastructure, was in a "strictly protected" area, there would not even be an avenue for the state to seek planning permission, much less a chance to be heard and refused.

    It's details like this that the public, as well as landowners, need to understand. That can apply to anything else you want to think of, sewerage schemes, water schemes, houses and so on. It's a class 1a designation, there's none higher.
    Dinzee Conlee wrote: »
    .

    I can see the OPs point that designations don’t work. But then I also see lads protesting about not being able to cut turf - and lads ignoring bans on turf cutting and the guards having to be called...

    So it seems bogs do need protection in this country... we are too keen to cut / drain / burn them...
    Who should protect them?

    I am not sure I agree with the approach being taken, but I can certainly understand it...

    A man in Westmeath was recently fined 5,000 for cutting turn on a designated bog. I don't know the particulars of the case and I'm offering no opinion on the rights or wrongs. But, remember, there are 39 Activities/Actions Requiring Consent (ARCs), some of which will be applied to land with the full weight of law behind them. If you do something on your land that's against them, erect a new fence, open a new drain, there's a ton more, you are then open to prosecution.

    It's not like CAP, which is voluntary, you can opt in or out, take the money or don't. Designations are there forever.
    Neddyusa wrote: »
    There's two distinct issues here,
    1. Restrictions on farmed peat soils - which will have an enormous impact on farming in some parts of the country
    and
    2. Restrictions on non- farmed raised or blanket bogs. These have very limited impacts on farming.

    I think what the OP is referring to is 1. rather than 2.
    So restrictions on farmland rather than "bog"

    Both really, as in they will affect both. What I am trying to do is make sure people here at least KNOW this is coming. There may be an outside chance to influence it politically, but that's the only chance. I am concerned there are a lot of "sure that won't happen us" cases. We, those with designated land now were ignorant of what was coming at us years ago. At least now we can try to warn others.


  • #17
    NcdJd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 994 ✭✭✭NcdJd


    With regard to Bord Na Mona's land bank of bog there's a couple of things I see in it.

    Peat for the horticultural sector needs to continue. I get my compost from bord na mona. I can't see any alternative seed germination medium that is as disease free and clean. Its the best. If that ends I suspect it will be imported from some other part of the eu. So to me a small percentage will still need to be harvested.

    I would think It's a very sad time for the communities and workers that have been involved in this industry, to me this is like when the sugar factories closed up. These people and communities need to be kept involved / upskilled in whatever direction is taken on these land banks. Whether it is rewetting them and building infrastructure ( which I would be in favour of ) and the ongoing maintenance for which it will need .

    I still haven't read the document lol but I hope its not going to be some one in an office with a red pen making off an area and to hell with the local communities livelihoods. Biodiversity is not just about rural communities/ farming. There are urban areas that could do with some biodiversity be it the councils not going mad with the lawnmowers / hedgecutters in the parks / housing estates. Not cutting down trees because if litigation concerns. I was looking at a video of a council worker in Dublin and what he done with a large pond in Dublin City. Brought in floating islands and planted native Irish plants and there are now bees, water is cleaner, fish, birds etc.. That's the type of action required and takes some work. I've respect for that man cause he actually went out and done something. There are people waffling on social media about biodiversity but don't see any of them actually doing anything practical which involves getting stuck in other than attacking agriculture whilst sitting on their arses somewhere doing sweet **** all. Some of them would probably faint at the site of a shovel or spade. Everyone can do their little bit for biodiversity, be it 1000 acre farm or a 20x20 metre patch of grass. But it needs to be done across the whole country rather than marking areas somewhere and next thing someones way if life is gone.

    Anyway incoherent rant over. Edit: Reading through the document, it's actually very interesting.


  • #18
    Say my name
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,763 ✭✭✭✭Say my name


    Just a reply to Ncdjd.

    On the clean growing medium.
    Biochar will work just fine. I've used miscanthus biochar treated with sea minerals for cuttings. Humic acid or seaweed solution mixed in would work too. The plant doesn't need as much watering too. Looks to hold onto more moisture than peat while also having air get to the roots.

    I'd agree on the social media warriors. Majority look like they're just empty tin cans rattling away without actually doing anything themselves. Constructive for them is rattling away on Twitter or Facebook.


  • #19
    NcdJd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 994 ✭✭✭NcdJd


    Say my name wrote: »
    Just a reply to Ncdjd.

    On the clean growing medium.
    Biochar will work just fine. I've used miscanthus biochar treated with sea minerals for cuttings. Humic acid or seaweed solution mixed in would work too. The plant doesn't need as much watering too. Looks to hold onto more moisture than peat while also having air get to the roots.

    I was actually looking at your thread yesterday and thinking about that ha. Watch this space man.


  • #20
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Deleted User wrote: »
    That's the argument they want you to fall into Brian. No one want's a ****, poisoned environment. But, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

    92% of habitats in designated areas have failed to improve OR gone backwards since the introduction of current designations over 20 years ago. That's straight from the NPWS.

    Designations. Do. Not. Work.

    .

    The designations were meant to come with a management plan for each site - successive Irish governments didn't bother with the latter and also re-directed CAP money that was mean't to pay affected farmers for implementing the management plans. This was yet another Irish state managed **** up when it came to preserving the rural environment.


  • #21
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    The designations were meant to come with a management plan for each site - successive Irish governments didn't bother with the latter and also re-directed CAP money that was mean't to pay affected farmers for implementing the management plans. This was yet another Irish state managed **** up when it came to preserving the rural environment.

    Yup. Add to that no explanation why land was designated. Great strategy to lose friends and alienate people, and now they wish to double down.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    _Brian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,617 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    The designations were meant to come with a management plan for each site - successive Irish governments didn't bother with the latter and also re-directed CAP money that was mean't to pay affected farmers for implementing the management plans. This was yet another Irish state managed **** up when it came to preserving the rural environment.

    That would have made a huge difference


  • #23
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    _Brian wrote: »
    That would have made a huge difference

    Unfortunately now there is "form" for not paying for designations. A few years ago the EU recognised each designated hectare was worth E150/HA standalone above and beyond anything else claimed on that ground. The killer was it was left up to individual member states to pay, or not.

    I value control and decision making on my land higher than any CAP value attached to it though. I would trade my CAP income if it would buy me out of the designation threat.


  • #24
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    A question has been asked of the relevant departments as to who (politically) is representing Ireland in regards to the Biodiversity strategy. The answer that was given was Minister Eamon Ryan, Minister Pippa Hackett, Minister Malcolm Noonan all have roles in regards to it.


  • #25
    endainoz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭endainoz


    Must have a look at this later on, luckily it doesn't affect me as much as others as I don't really have any bog areas around me.

    I also agree that peat as bedding shouldn't be allowed but it hands down the best kind of bedding you can use. In my first season of organic conversion I was allowed to use it. Amazing stuff for drainage and keeping animals tidy. Not one single case of scour or any pathogens really. It will also be reused for a no dig market garden mixed with fym.

    But I do completely understand that it's unsustainable.


  • #26
    Say my name
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,763 ✭✭✭✭Say my name


    endainoz wrote: »
    Must have a look at this later on, luckily it doesn't affect me as much as others as I don't really have any bog areas around me.

    I also agree that peat as bedding shouldn't be allowed but it hands down the best kind of bedding you can use. In my first season of organic conversion I was allowed to use it. Amazing stuff for drainage and keeping animals tidy. Not one single case of scour or any pathogens really. It will also be reused for a no dig market garden mixed with fym.

    But I do completely understand that it's unsustainable.

    You may use woodchip next year as the government is bringing in a payment for cereal growers to plough down straw.

    I'm not sure how ploughing qualifies as helping soil health but the tillage growers have convinced the government it's a carbon saver and helping their incomes.

    Unintended consequences are it'll make it tougher for organic livestock farmers to secure straw and those not will probably just put in cubicles or house on slats from now on.
    Specialist monoculture farmers how are ya..:pac:


  • #27
    endainoz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭endainoz


    Say my name wrote: »
    You may use woodchip next year as the government is bringing in a payment for cereal growers to plough down straw.

    I'm not sure how ploughing qualifies as helping soil health but the tillage growers have convinced the government it's a carbon saver and helping their incomes.

    Unintended consequences are it'll make it tougher for organic livestock farmers to secure straw and those not will probably just put in cubicles or house on slats from now on.
    Specialist monoculture farmers how are ya..:pac:

    God that's ridiculous that they think that'll help m it'll have the obvious opposite effect. I'd still wager they would make more money selling straw though, but you could be right.

    The prices will probably go up anyway. It does make the better case for lads to get out of bigger continentals to prolong the grazing season as much as possible.


  • #28
    Kickstart1.3
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 186 ✭✭Kickstart1.3


    Madness burning turf in this day and age. No way can it be justified and should be outlawed.


  • #29
    _Brian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,617 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Kickstart1.3 wrote: »
    Madness burning turf in this day and age. No way can it be justified and should be outlawed.

    But somebody’s grandfather’s uncles sister used to do it so it’s a tradition we must keep up.
    With 20Tone diggers and dual wheel 4wd tractors and sausage machines.


  • #30
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    I see the new ministers main advisor arrived via Lakeland and the the IFJ - no wonder so much of the DAFM's thinking is still stuck in the 80's:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    tabby aspreme
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,034 ✭✭✭tabby aspreme


    Say my name wrote: »
    You may use woodchip next year as the government is bringing in a payment for cereal growers to plough down straw.

    I'm not sure how ploughing qualifies as helping soil health but the tillage growers have convinced the government it's a carbon saver and helping their incomes.

    Unintended consequences are it'll make it tougher for organic livestock farmers to secure straw and those not will probably just put in cubicles or house on slats from now on.
    Specialist monoculture farmers how are ya..:pac:

    Ploughing in straw raises the Organic Matter levels in the soil


  • #32
    Say my name
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,763 ✭✭✭✭Say my name


    tabby aspreme wrote: »
    Ploughing in straw raises the Organic Matter levels in the soil

    It's the bacteria and fungi that raises the organic matter in soil and raises the long term carbon.
    5 years ago group think was by just burying plant matter job done. However we've moved on from there and it's now known that if the soil life is not there that plant matter won't break down into the stable..ish carbon components.
    What kills soil life is soil tillage and sprays and fungicides. The plough releases carbon stores to the atmosphere and damages soil life.
    I'm surprised min till wasn't promoted.

    A plough scrapage scheme would have been better for the environment.


  • #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Will IFA call this scaremongering too?

    https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/eu-environment-ministers-endorse-biodiversity-strategy/

    A lot of farmers have no clue what's about to descend on them.

    For those reading that think this will do "something" for the environment, 92% of the habitats havd failed to improve or declined in the near 25 years since Michael D Higgins signed them in.

    Designations are simply punishment.

    Our Dail will have no say in this, which suits most political parties who can say nothing to do with us.


  • #34
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/roadmap-to-reduce-management-intensity-of-40000ha-of-peat-based-soils/

    Some nice quotes from the article above. Basically they want to flood these lands.

    "drained lands will be targeted for carbon loss reduction"

    "water table manipulation and reduced management intensity"

    "identifying grasslands “on carbon rich soils (and determine their drainage status)"


  • #35
    Capercaillie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Capercaillie


    Say my name wrote: »
    Just a reply to Ncdjd.

    On the clean growing medium.
    Biochar will work just fine. I've used miscanthus biochar treated with sea minerals for cuttings. Humic acid or seaweed solution mixed in would work too. The plant doesn't need as much watering too. Looks to hold onto more moisture than peat while also having air get to the roots.

    I'd agree on the social media warriors. Majority look like they're just empty tin cans rattling away without actually doing anything themselves. Constructive for them is rattling away on Twitter or Facebook.

    This might be a stupid question, why is biochar not been advocted as a growing medium? The use of peat has to stop and there is a huge market for commericial/domestic growing mediums??


  • #36
    Say my name
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,763 ✭✭✭✭Say my name


    Capercaillie wrote: »
    This might be a stupid question, why is biochar not been advocted as a growing medium? The use of peat has to stop and there is a huge market for commericial/domestic growing mediums??

    I honestly don't know.

    It was used 50 and probably 100 years ago and more as a medium in orchid growing.

    It's use got sidelined then with the availability of peat being sold in bags ready to go.

    There's a little bit of snobbery I suspect from academia in certain quarters and then you have the businesses that don't want change saying it can't be done.
    Monty Don got the ire from all lately.

    Asia are way ahead on the matter. Probably because it's poverty farmer led and gardeners with skills in Europe are on the ball too.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Say my name
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,763 ✭✭✭✭Say my name


    Taken just now.

    Peat free. 100% biochar.

    20201210-094647.jpg


  • #38
    alps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,086 ✭✭✭alps


    If peat is returned to the ground after being used as bedding, where has the carbon loss occured?

    Is there a loss in the extraction similar to when ploughing a field or is there a loss during the rotting/composting process?


  • #39
    Say my name
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,763 ✭✭✭✭Say my name


    alps wrote: »
    If peat is returned to the ground after being used as bedding, where has the carbon loss occured?

    Is there a loss in the extraction similar to when ploughing a field or is there a loss during the rotting/composting process?
    Both ways. By drying out the bog for extraction it rots away back to carbon dioxide and up to the atmosphere.
    Same when spreading back on land it rots away back to carbon dioxide and up to the atmosphere.
    All the above need is wet anaerobic soil conditions to stop the rot and preserve the carbon. It's pickled carbon.


  • #40
    Capercaillie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Capercaillie


    Say my name wrote: »
    Both ways. By drying out the bog for extraction it rots away back to carbon dioxide and up to the atmosphere.
    Same when spreading back on land it rots away back to carbon dioxide and up to the atmosphere.
    All the above need is wet anaerobic soil conditions to stop the rot and preserve the carbon. It's pickled carbon.

    Same problem with planting forestry on blanket bog. Instaling drains removes water and exposes the peat to atmospheric oxygen. The Carbon in peat is then oxidized to CO2.

    As the trees grow and their roots grow down into peat more water is removed and even more Carbon (from peat) is oxidized to CO2.


  • #41
    blue5000
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,696 Mod ✭✭✭✭blue5000


    Capercaillie wrote: »
    Same problem with planting forestry on blanket bog. Instaling drains removes water and exposes the peat to atmospheric oxygen. The Carbon in peat is then oxidized to CO2.

    As the trees grow and their roots grow down into peat more water is removed and even more Carbon (from peat) is oxidized to CO2.

    But after 15 years the trees absorb more than was released by the peat. Hard to find info on it though. I think CCF should be encouraged on peat soils.

    If the seat's wet, sit on yer hat, a cool head is better than a wet ar5e.



  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Capercaillie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Capercaillie


    blue5000 wrote: »
    But after 15 years the trees absorb more than was released by the peat. Hard to find info on it though. I think CCF should be encouraged on peat soils.

    Peatlands cover 3% of world land surface but sequester more C than the combined C stored in worlds forest. Draining peatlands to sow conifer is a disaster for C emissions.


  • #43
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I see Minister Noonan has contradicted IFA on their statement that no new designations will be brought into law.

    Farmers on all peatlands, in all provinces and all counties in the state need to be concerned about this. No use complaining the stable door wasn't bolted after the facts ladies & gents.

    https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/noonan-i-did-not-make-definitive-statement-about-further-designations

    FYI

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=113951008


    But Tim said it could never happen! Do the teachers union take farmers?

    https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/ireland-to-join-global-effort-to-designate-a-third-of-the-earth-as-a-protected-area-39954057.html


  • #44
    _Brian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,617 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Deleted User wrote: »
    But Tim said it could never happen! Do the teachers union take farmers?

    https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/ireland-to-join-global-effort-to-designate-a-third-of-the-earth-as-a-protected-area-39954057.html

    Maybe do a HDip online :D


  • #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    _Brian wrote: »
    Maybe do a HDip online :D

    I'm doing 4 courses currently online, and I'm tossing around the idea of a 5th :eek:, when I get a gap in my schedule around 2037 I'll briefly consider and reject the idea :D And that's a promise!


  • #46
    _Brian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,617 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm doing 4 courses currently online, and I'm tossing around the idea of a 5th :eek:, when I get a gap in my schedule around 2037 I'll briefly consider and reject the idea :D And that's a promise!

    That’s quite the schedule!!


  • #47
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    _Brian wrote: »
    That’s quite the schedule!!

    Given the topic of this thread I had to reorganise my priorities. One tip for designated lands, if you're already doing something, it's much more difficult for them to stop you. Not impossible, but it adds spanners to the works.


  • #48
    Castlekeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,899 ✭✭✭Castlekeeper


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    But Tim said it could never happen! Do the teachers union take farmers?

    https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/ireland-to-join-global-effort-to-designate-a-third-of-the-earth-as-a-protected-area-39954057.html

    Tim openly said that that he would represent other farmers as well as commercial farmers if he was elected.
    Says it all really, business as usual for the IFA, we're alright Jack.


  • #49
    Castlekeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,899 ✭✭✭Castlekeeper


    Designations are a cop out option.
    What's needed is appropriate agricultural practices to help farmers, the environment, and all rural areas will benefit.
    Turf cutting is a separate issue.


  • #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Castlekeeper wrote: »
    Tim openly said that that he would represent other farmers as well as commercial farmers if he was elected.
    Says it all really, business as usual for the IFA, we're alright Jack.
    Castlekeeper wrote: »
    Designations are a cop out option.
    What's needed is appropriate agricultural practices to help farmers, the environment, and all rural areas will benefit.
    Turf cutting is a separate issue.

    Thing is, a lot of farmers who are IFA members will get designated. Their association has been telling them it won't happen. There are three green ministers in charge of implementing this. There's no escaping it when 30% of the country is down for designation. People need to be aware rather than being treated like mushrooms and fed ****.

    It appears the 10% strictly protected designation will fall mostly on state owned land BUT, be aware, there isn't enough state owned land to cover that 10%. AND with Ireland being made up of over 20% carbon rich soils it is likely we will get in excess of 10% strictly protected as the 10% target is an EU wide target not a member state target.

    On Ag practices (and I agree with you in principle), the green ministers were asked directly, if farmers were to willingly sign up to the aspirations of the Biodiversity 2030 strategy could the legal burdens (designations) be shelved. The answer was "no".

    That's what we're dealing with.


  • #51
    Base price
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,349 ✭✭✭✭Base price


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Thing is, a lot of farmers who are IFA members will get designated. Their association has been telling them it won't happen. There are three green ministers in charge of implementing this. There's no escaping it when 30% of the country is down for designation. People need to be aware rather than being treated like mushrooms and fed ****.

    It appears the 10% strictly protected designation will fall mostly on state owned land BUT, be aware, there isn't enough state owned land to cover that 10%. AND with Ireland being made up of over 20% carbon rich soils it is likely we will get in excess of 10% strictly protected as the 10% target is an EU wide target not a member state target.

    On Ag practices (and I agree with you in principle), the green ministers were asked directly, if farmers were to willingly sign up to the aspirations of the Biodiversity 2030 strategy could the legal burdens (designations) be shelved. The answer was "no".

    That's what we're dealing with.
    I thought it said that the designation would cover land and sea so one presumes that a portion of the sea will be included?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement