Replace Ireland's beef herd with forestry

I don't no much about forestry but I have worked on a few farms and seen and I'd have to say forestry is the best way to go for them, it would be a better way for a owner to make a living off it, no point in only getting a first cut of silage in late July august and wrecking the place every year to get a few bails to feed a few cattle and using the SFP to pay for it makes no sense. Wouldn't be happy with good to average land been turned into forestry. But there will be some lads that will turn good enough land into forestry for easy money that don't have a interest in farming it, or with there own job don't have the time to farm it and don't want to sell it.

Sent from my SM-T530 using Tapatalk

forestry is more rewarding financially than any kind of beef farming if you take a five year income average , the opposition to forestry is idealogical , not saying its wrong to oppose it , its a big thing to say goodbye to a field of grass or a field of cattle if its all you have ever known

enviromentalism is a growing political force , i can see a situation where a carrot and stick approach is used more widely towards this country going forward , they will do more than try and persuade us to plant
 
Well at least they can now rent it virtually tax free with the new schemes to the best of my knowledge anyways. Far better than planting it in my opinion tbh.

what if the farmer refused to pay , plus you still have a stranger operating your land
 
what if the farmer refused to pay , plus you still have a stranger operating your land

Wait till a few years time when you have no payments left to draw and tree huggers blocking you clearing it.
As for a farmer that wont pay, well most upcoming young or youngish farmers i know including myself wont be on with that messing as there in it for the long haul, not just to turn a quick buck. If you disclosed your location i bet theres plenty on here who might be interested or know someone else who would be [MENTION=6122]hopefull_farmer[/MENTION]. But if you want to look at the negative side of things all the time well thats your choice and so be it.
 
Last edited:
Wait till a few years time when you have no payments left to draw and tree huggers blocking you clearing it.
As for a farmer that wont pay, well most upcoming young or youngish farmers i know including myself wont be on with that messing as there in it for the long haul, not just to turn a quick buck. If you disclosed your location i bet theres plenty on here who might be interested or know someone else who would be @ hopefull_farmer. But if you want to look at the negative side of things all the time well thats your choice and so be it.

To be fair though Johnny, you are only looking at the negative side of forestry.
Take the first sentence of your post for instance, I have never heard of 'tree huggers' blocking commercial forestry's from being cleared.
 
Wait till a few years time when you have no payments left to draw and tree huggers blocking you clearing it.
As for a farmer that wont pay, well most upcoming young or youngish farmers i know including myself wont be on with that messing as there in it for the long haul, not just to turn a quick buck. If you disclosed your location i bet theres plenty on here who might be interested or know someone else who would be [MENTION=6122]hopefull_farmer[/MENTION]. But if you want to look at the negative side of things all the time well thats your choice and so be it.

actually ive decided not to plant a large amount of acres , im going to plant a small useless paddock , i like calving cows in the spring ,seeing calves get big etc , i go through periods of extreme logic where i realise that beef pays terribly for the amount of work involved but then i realise i like messing about with cattle too much to say goodbye to them forever , i dont rely on farming completely anyway

back on topic , the big guns appear to be getting serious about enviromental politics , its a reality , why else would there be so many incentives to get farmers to plant ?

as for your prediction that in a few years , there will be no payments left to draw , i could just as easily see the opposite happen , europe will call a halt to payments to beef producers as a stick to push them into forestry
 
To be fair though Johnny, you are only looking at the negative side of forestry.
Take the first sentence of your post for instance, I have never heard of 'tree huggers' blocking commercial forestry's from being cleared.

I suppose i am looking a bit negative towards it. Personally i don't mind seeing bog been planted [MENTION=2778]mike b[/MENTION]ut it just sickens me to see land with any sort of land with potential been planted.
I know the tree huggers aren't at it yet but is it much of a stretch of the imagination for them to go there ???????
 
actually ive decided not to plant a large amount of acres , im going to plant a small useless paddock , i like calving cows in the spring ,seeing calves get big etc , i go through periods of extreme logic where i realise that beef pays terribly for the amount of work involved but then i realise i like messing about with cattle too much to say goodbye to them forever , i dont rely on farming completely anyway

back on topic , the big guns appear to be getting serious about enviromental politics , its a reality , why else would there be so many incentives to get farmers to plant ?

as for your prediction that in a few years , there will be no payments left to draw , i could just as easily see the opposite happen , europe will call a halt to payments to beef producers as a stick to push them into forestry

I can understand you planting the useless paddock as to what you have said about it in the past.
Yea i go through moments of madness here too on the financial side here when i look deeply at it too as I'd say most on here do as well :lol::lol:.
About the environmental politics, well thereis changes coming for sure. But do the ones who are making the rules and regs actually know that much about it. Theres far more means for more environmental change than mass planting of forestry. Whats planted here will be more than cleared somewhere else.
As for the payements are they not allready set for a period of time with forestry? ??
Also how long till the payements leave little or nothing when the insurance is paid.
With the beef payements if they could sustainably feed the world at a reasonable price we would be getting nothing at all for a long time already.
Please dont think I'm trying to come over all hateful over this or anything [MENTION=6122]hopefull_farmer[/MENTION]. Just my own opinions and makes for good debating in my opinon.
 
I suppose i am looking a bit negative towards it. Personally i don't mind seeing bog been planted [MENTION=2778]mike b[/MENTION]ut it just sickens me to see land with any sort of land with potential been planted.
I know the tree huggers aren't at it yet but is it much of a stretch of the imagination for them to go there ???????

Bog grows trees badly. I went into one of those info tents one year in the ploughing or tullamore ( i forget where) but i was told if there was heather growing it would be unsuitable for forestry.

I always just assumed the "greens" were gone a bit soft from to many nuts and berrys and no red meat. When talking to one its best just to nod and smile, as you would with a slow learner or small child.
 
I suppose i am looking a bit negative towards it. Personally i don't mind seeing bog been planted [MENTION=2778]mike b[/MENTION]ut it just sickens me to see land with any sort of land with potential been planted.
I know the tree huggers aren't at it yet but is it much of a stretch of the imagination for them to go there ???????

your reasons for opposing it are idealogical , there is no solid reason to believe that planting good land is a bad decision , then again the reasons the green lobby want beef production reduced and forestry increased is also idealogical
 
I can understand you planting the useless paddock as to what you have said about it in the past.
Yea i go through moments of madness here too on the financial side here when i look deeply at it too as I'd say most on here do as well :lol::lol:.
About the environmental politics, well thereis changes coming for sure. But do the ones who are making the rules and regs actually know that much about it. Theres far more means for more environmental change than mass planting of forestry. Whats planted here will be more than cleared somewhere else.
As for the payements are they not allready set for a period of time with forestry? ??
Also how long till the payements leave little or nothing when the insurance is paid.
With the beef payements if they could sustainably feed the world at a reasonable price we would be getting nothing at all for a long time already.
Please dont think I'm trying to come over all hateful over this or anything [MENTION=6122]hopefull_farmer[/MENTION]. Just my own opinions and makes for good debating in my opinon.


im not near smart enough to know whether the green lobby is right about climate change or people who claims its not that big of an issue , beit energy companies or farmers , very few neutral observers however
 
I know the tree huggers aren't at it yet but is it much of a stretch of the imagination for them to go there ???????
To be fair though Johnny, you are only looking at the negative side of forestry.
Take the first sentence of your post for instance, I have never heard of 'tree huggers' blocking commercial forestry's from being cleared.

I have.
Clear fells are no longer allowed a certain percentage have to be left (due to ecological concerns)

Now wont it be fun when it comes times to harvest and you're little nest egg is now home to a few breeding pairs of hen harriers? Well you can't reseed SAC cos of the effect of habitat change but clearing all trees will be fine :whistle:

I suppose i am looking a bit negative towards it. Personally i don't mind seeing bog been planted [MENTION=2778]mike b[/MENTION]ut it just sickens me to see land with any sort of land with potential been planted.
Irony is planting bogs will probably INCREASE greenhouse gas emissions as carbon rich bogs dry out and release vast amounts of CO2 and Methane
 
Last edited:
back on topic , the big guns appear to be getting serious about enviromental politics , its a reality , why else would there be so many incentives to get farmers to plant ?

Its pretty simple, by reducing farming and replacing it with a vast area of externally owned forestry helps to reduce rural economic activity. Beef farming may not be profitable but it is a very good way to spread money through the economy

1. Politically the easiest solution to the environmentalist concerns

2. The west coast has always been a thorn in the side of the politically party as they can never be predicted as to how they will vote. The less people there the better from the parties point of view

3. Anti-rural campaigners (who also are a very strong voice within environmentalist concern) see this as another way to achieve their goals-less rural people, less one-off housing, less investment outside of Dublin
 
Last edited:
your reasons for opposing it are idealogical , there is no solid reason to believe that planting good land is a bad decision ,

How long of a list would you like?

Habitat destruction, nitrogen leeching, soil degradation, helps to reduce economic activity in rural economies.

Hell I have others. Yes, I'l openly admit I do have ideological reasons to oppose forestry but no that doesnt mean there isnt damn good reasons to oppose it
 
Its pretty simple, by reducing farming and replacing it with a vast area of externally owned forestry helps to reduce rural economic activity. Beef farming may not be profitable but it is a very good way to spread money through the economy

1. Politically the easiest solution to the environmentalist concerns

2. The west coast has always been a thorn in the side of the politically party as they can never be predicted as to how they will vote. The less people there the better from the parties point of view

3. Anti-rural campaigners (who also are a very strong voice within environmentalist concern) see this as another way to achieve their goals-less rural people, less one-off housing, less investment outside of Dublin


the western vote is too small to swing an election one way or another , its all about dublin and will be more so going forward

i oppose one off housing and i live in rural ireland , it looks awful and is extremely expensive in terms of providing services etc , ever travelled through rural scotland or wales , the only people who live out in the middle of nowhere are farmers , everyone else lives in neighbourhoods surrounding the local town even its a really small town or village

if i didnt live on a small farm , i wouldnt live in out in the sticks , i think its weird how a school teacher or IT worker would want to live out in the countryside on a dormer bungalow stuck up some boreen
 
the western vote is too small to swing an election one way or another , its all about dublin and will be more so going forward

i oppose one off housing and i live in rural ireland , it looks awful and is extremely expensive in terms of providing services etc , ever travelled through rural scotland or wales , the only people who live out in the middle of nowhere are farmers , everyone else lives in neighbourhoods surrounding the local town even its a really small town or village

if i didnt live on a small farm , i wouldnt live in out in the sticks , i think its weird how a school teacher or IT worker would want to live out in the countryside on a dormer bungalow stuck up some boreen

Swing a vote isnt a problem. Sending problematic TDs can be. Fitzmaurice is a great example.

As for not being able to swing a vote: Ming Bloody Flanaghan went out to EU with a huge margin, oh and when was the last time Donegal ever voted for a gov supported referendum? (Apart from the gay marriage one cos they're sound about that)

A yea farmers living in complete isolation is brilliant, for economies and for mental health...
And if that school teacher or IT worker wants to live near their elder parents who live on that farm? Or raise their kids in a the same safe communities they grew up? Awful stuff that

Na you're completely right cos all the towns in Ireland have no problems what-so-ever
 
I suppose i am looking a bit negative towards it. Personally i don't mind seeing bog been planted [MENTION=2778]mike b[/MENTION]ut it just sickens me to see land with any sort of land with potential been planted.
I know the tree huggers aren't at it yet but is it much of a stretch of the imagination for them to go there ???????

It all depends on your definition of 'any sort of land with potential' too, but I agree with you that it would be a shame to see farms of good dry land planted.

I would have no worry's whatsover about forest owners being stopped from harvesting/thinning etc tbh. They want people to plant trees, if they started that, nobody would plant a new forest.
 
Swing a vote isnt a problem. Sending problematic TDs can be. Fitzmaurice is a great example.

As for not being able to swing a vote: Ming Bloody Flanaghan went out to EU with a huge margin, oh and when was the last time Donegal ever voted for a gov supported referendum? (Apart from the gay marriage one cos they're sound about that)

A yea farmers living in complete isolation is brilliant, for economies and for mental health...
And if that school teacher or IT worker wants to live near their elder parents who live on that farm? Or raise their kids in a the same safe communities they grew up? Awful stuff that

Na you're completely right cos all the towns in Ireland have no problems what-so-ever


its not complete isolation , the village may only be a few miles from a farm in some cases and thats where the rural ( non farmer population ) live , i see it with my relatives in rural north wales , its the ribbon development ( houses dotted across the landscape everywhere ) im on about , its very unique to this country and is incredibly inefficent when it comes to providing services etc , not to mention a blight on the landscape and thats not a view borne out of enviromentalism , it just looks like hell

you dont always have the choice to live beside your parents , if that were the case , the children of people in dublin 4 would all be buying the houses a few doors down but they cant afford them often so have to live elsewhere
 
its not complete isolation , the village may only be a few miles from a farm in some cases and thats where the rural ( non farmer population ) live , i see it with my relatives in rural north wales , its the ribbon development ( houses dotted across the landscape everywhere ) im on about , its very unique to this country and is incredibly inefficent when it comes to providing services etc , not to mention a blight on the landscape and thats not a view borne out of enviromentalism , it just looks like hell

you dont always have the choice to live beside your parents , if that were the case , the children of people in dublin 4 would all be buying the houses a few doors down but they cant afford them often so have to live elsewhere

I don't know you are going to solve all of that hopefull farmer.

Most of that is related right back to the 1800's when many had their acre plot and small cabin.
 
I don't know you are going to solve all of that hopefull farmer.

Most of that is related right back to the 1800's when many had their acre plot and small cabin.

granted but i think there needs to be a new approach going forward , its definately a cultural thing alright , people must think building on a half acre three miles from the village makes them a land owner of some kind
 
your reasons for opposing it are idealogical , there is no solid reason to believe that planting good land is a bad decision , then again the reasons the green lobby want beef production reduced and forestry increased is also idealogical

I set out my reasons for opposing forestry in the first post. I'll do it again:

1. Forestry drives people off the land. Less people living in the countryside and more living in towns and cities destroys the rural communities, rural services etc. etc. People don't tend to live in great numbers in forests in ireland.

2. Forestry grants drive farmers off the land. I cited that in my area, most of the grants are claimed by forestry companies or by absentee farmers. Instead of this land being sold to allow local farmers to expand holdings, the forestry grants make this land more valuable to companies and absentee's to plant it than to farm it. This again drives children, families etc off the land.

3. A lot of forestry in planted in Ireland in order to claim the grant - no consideration is given to how they will get the trees out, to adjoining neighbours etc.

4. Sika is of little environmental benefit. 90% of forests in this country are sika. They provide no habitat for animals and literally no other plants can grow on the forest floor because they cut off all light.
 
you dont always have the choice to live beside your parents , if that were the case , the children of people in dublin 4 would all be buying the houses a few doors down but they cant afford them often so have to live elsewhere

You over look the need to live beside your parents - farms need labour. Farmers need to live beside their farms, not in towns and villages where they have to travel miles to get back to their farm!!
 
I set out my reasons for opposing forestry in the first post. I'll do it again:

1. Forestry drives people off the land. Less people living in the countryside and more living in towns and cities destroys the rural communities, rural services etc. etc. People don't tend to live in great numbers in forests in ireland.

2. Forestry grants drive farmers off the land. I cited that in my area, most of the grants are claimed by forestry companies or by absentee farmers. Instead of this land being sold to allow local farmers to expand holdings, the forestry grants make this land more valuable to companies and absentee's to plant it than to farm it. This again drives children, families etc off the land.

3. A lot of forestry in planted in Ireland in order to claim the grant - no consideration is given to how they will get the trees out, to adjoining neighbours etc.

4. Sika is of little environmental benefit. 90% of forests in this country are sika. They provide no habitat for animals and literally no other plants can grow on the forest floor because they cut off all light.


rural populations are in decline anyway and that trend is going to continue , the number of farmers of any kind will also continue to decrease , farms in ireland are very small by international standards , its highly unlikely we are going to be unique in maintaining a nation of small holdings
 
You over look the need to live beside your parents - farms need labour. Farmers need to live beside their farms, not in towns and villages where they have to travel miles to get back to their farm!!

who said anything about farmers not living on or beside their farms ?

im talking about people who work in non farm jobs living out in the middle of nowhere , its a very unique phenomenon to this country , in the likes of rural wales or scotland , people who work for the goverment , in shops , wherever , live in and around the local village , not in a house stuck up some boreen which is prone to flooding
 
rural populations are in decline anyway and that trend is going to continue , the number of farmers of any kind will also continue to decrease , farms in ireland are very small by international standards , its highly unlikely we are going to be unique in maintaining a nation of small holdings

But grant aiding forestry for companies and non farmers is the same as grant aiding rural decline. I'm all for grant aiding farmers who plant their land and draw a living from this grant aid and continue to live on the land. But the majority of land planted in my area is not planted to do this.

It is planted quite simply for the money out of it. It directly wipes out farmers. It prevents them from buying neighbouring land at prices that they could actually afford to repay using income from the said land. In short, it takes the conrol of land from the farmers that have been farming and maintaining it since the iron age and puts the control in the hands of companies and individuals who have no interest in preserving rural communities. Their only interest is in money.

In short it accelerates the decline of rural communities making a lot of individuals poorer and a small handful of individuals even more wealthy using taxpayers and EU money.

It has nothing to do with the environment.
 
who said anything about farmers not living on or beside their farms ?

im talking about people who work in non farm jobs living out in the middle of nowhere , its a very unique phenomenon to this country , in the likes of rural wales or scotland , people who work for the goverment , in shops , wherever , live in and around the local village , not in a house stuck up some boreen which is prone to flooding

You did.

you dont always have the choice to live beside your parents

If you are from a farm family, then it's often vital that you live near your farm. As is currently the case, many people have to hold an off farm job like in the government, shops or where ever. It doesn't mean that they don't work on farms too. There are plenty of people in this situation including myself. You can't tar everyone with the one brush. Planning laws are supposed to sort this out, but they far from do that.

There isn't a one size fits all. Population in our townland has halved in the last 20 years. You simply can't force people to live in towns.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top