Farmers Journal Forestry Ad

6600

Has anyone seen the ads for the forestry co in the Journal lately? They're in it every week, near the front.

They appear to be targeted at old, non-active farmers and use what can only be described as emotional blackmail to encourage the poor oul fellas to put land into forestry - "I never thought I'd get that land working so well for me" etc

My question: Do you think this is an appropriate ad for the Journal to be carrying? I am a young farmer trying desperately to increase my holding while working as well, all the while seeing more and more good land going into forestry. In the last few years about 300 acres within 3 miles of me have gone. All good Wexford land.

The Journal is owned by the Agricultural Trust which is supposed to help farmers. Is helping to lock up land forever from young farmers a part of this? What does anyone think?

Dazzler88

I agree with you.They should not allow forestry companies to advertise in the journal.People who plant their land are ruining the industry for young farmers.

Just seen 100 acres of great land been planted near us.The old fella who had it was a bachelor,would he not have been better off sell it or give it to a young farmer.

reilig

6600 wrote: »

Has anyone seen the ads for the forestry co in the Journal lately? They're in it every week, near the front.

They appear to be targeted at old, non-active farmers and use what can only be described as emotional blackmail to encourage the poor oul fellas to put land into forestry - "I never thought I'd get that land working so well for me" etc

My question: Do you think this is an appropriate ad for the Journal to be carrying? I am a young farmer trying desperately to increase my holding while working as well, all the while seeing more and more good land going into forestry. In the last few years about 300 acres within 3 miles of me have gone. All good Wexford land.

The Journal is owned by the Agricultural Trust which is supposed to help farmers. Is helping to lock up land forever from young farmers a part of this? What does anyone think?

I know where you are coming from and I understand your feelings on this, but the Journal is a business which aims to make a profit. They will accept any type of legal advertising. Just because farmers would rather put their land into forestry than put it up for auction so that you can buy it does not mean that the Journal or Indo or any farming publication for that matter are doing wrong.

Many older people see forestry as a good option because they get paid for the use of their land but still retain ownership of it and are still able to pass it on to the next generation as inheritance.

Now don't get me wrong, I hate forestry. I have seen the finest of land planted with trees close to my home and I would love to have the capital to invest in the land. But there's no point coming on here moaning about how forestry is locking up land. If you want land, buy it. Forestry owners pay bottom of the scale prices and usually aren't too hard beaten for price. But if you spend too much time lamenting about land being lost to forestry or old men not releasing land for the younger generation, your farm expansion plans will stand very still. If you want to expand, you have to take the bull by the horns, do up a financial plan, borrow money and get out and buy the land -

The auctioneer won't call you, you have to call them!!!

JohnBoy

It's their land, if they want to plant it then that's their choice.

Similarly the journal can sell advertising space to anyone it wants to.


last time I checked this was still a relatively free country.

F.D

Very hard to buy land if its not for sale, even the auctioneers cant tell you if someones is planting the land next to you until you see coilte or some other ones going in and starting the job,
Been realistic no matter what plan you draw up who can afford the repayments on land anyway,
There needs to be more adds promoting the tax benifits for these older farmers to rent there land on a long term basis, another way of retaning ownership i think you'll agree
if the government have a real interest in this food harvest rubbish there spouting about expansion i think they will have to land lock good land and only allow marginal be planted

6600

Agree fully with you Reilig - I am working on it and you can't fight every battle. People have a right to do what they want with their own land. Its just the tone of the ads, the way the play on an old person's vulnerability that bugs me. They remind me of the mortgage ads from a few years ago.
Also the Farmer's Journal is run by a trust and its primary objective is not profit-making.

Also it seems that to question the forestry agenda of constantly increasing planting targets is taboo.

Username John

Dazzler88 wrote: »

They should not allow forestry companies to advertise in the journal.

I dont see why not, forestry is suited to some land, and to some people. As much as you may hate it, forestry is a viable option.

Dazzler88 wrote: »

People who plant their land are ruining the industry for young farmers.

Just seen 100 acres of great land been planted near us.The old fella who had it was a bachelor,would he not have been better off sell it or give it to a young farmer.

I understand where you're coming from, planting forestry does lock up land for years to come. But its his land, to do with as he pleases...

As for "giving it" to young farmer? Why would he give it away? Can I ask, at what age do you plan to "give" your farm to a young farmer?

6600

Username John wrote: »

I dont see why not, forestry is suited to some land, and to some people. As much as you may hate it, forestry is a viable option.

I understand where you're coming from, planting forestry does lock up land for years to come. But its his land, to do with as he pleases...


Firstly, forestry would never be viable if it wasn't for the massive subsidization given to it. The subsidies have been removed from everything else why not forestry?

Secondly, I agree that a person can do what they like with their own land. But the EU handouts, government policy and these persuasive ads must influence a lot of peoples decisions. A level playing field is all I'm looking for.

Username John

F.D wrote: »

There needs to be more adds promoting the tax benifits for these older farmers to rent there land on a long term basis, another way of retaning ownership i think you'll agree

I'm not sure this would work. Some of the older generation would consider letting it, or someone else farming it as the same thing as selling it almost.

F.D wrote: »

if the government have a real interest in this food harvest rubbish there spouting about expansion i think they will have to land lock good land and only allow marginal be planted

Whats marginal to one man, is grand land to another.

I completely disagree with this view though. People should be able to do what they want their own land.

MOSSAD

Before people farmed the land, for the most part it was covered by trees. Forests are usually the climax vegetation on land in this country. Foresters get slammed for not growing broadleaves, namely oak and ash. However to grow quality trees requires the best land i.e. the best farming areas of the country-left to it's own the land would eventually be covered by boadleaves.
I appreciate where you're coming from, but like one poster said it's a free country and people are free to do what they want to do with their land. Make an offer.
Also spare a thought for the farmers on some of the poorest land in the country, who are now precluded from planting their land based on controversial "water-acidity tests" introduced by the EPA. The testing method alone is questionable, not to mention the belief defying use of statistics to determine if someone will be allowed to plant.
Simply put, you take 4 tests which must pass above a certain cut-off point. Even if the average is sky high, you will fail if a single test falls below the magical cutoff point. The theory, practice and implementation is riddled with inconsistencies, and it has effectively sterilised 10% of the country with respect to forestry. Funny thing is, left to itself, the land will eventually be covered in some sort of tree cover. Apologies for going off topic.

Username John

6600 wrote: »

Firstly, forestry would never be viable if it wasn't for the massive subsidization given to it. The subsidies have been removed from everything else why not forestry?

Secondly, I agree that a person can do what they like with their own land. But the EU handouts, government policy and these persuasive ads must influence a lot of peoples decisions. A level playing field is all I'm looking for.

Yep, if the grants went tomorrow, that ad in the journal would look very different. But there are there now (however long they last in our present climate)

Re a level playing field - I think thats a whole different topic. Surely new / young farmers are at a disadvantage and not playing on a level playing level field at all?

Grecco

reilig wrote: »

IIf you want to expand, you have to take the bull by the horns, do up a financial plan, borrow money and get out and buy the land -

The auctioneer won't call you, you have to call them!!!

Well said reilig

6600

Ya fair enough but the steepness could be reduced a bit. When the tax-free premia is near enough the same as rent for good tillage land there's no competition.

I don't want to fall out with anyone over this, as I said its an emotive topic.

When I did the Teagasc ag course about 5 years ago the buzzwords were extensification, headage, REPS, off-farm investment and forestry. Commercial farming almost seemed irrelevant. Struck me then that any sort of real farmer was going to face an uphill battle in the years ahead when that was the way people were being pushed. Thankfully most of the above have gone or reduced and production is back on the agenda. The sky has not fallen in, the future is brighter now than it was then.

MOSSAD

6600 wrote: »

Username John wrote: »

Firstly, forestry would never be viable if it wasn't for the massive subsidization given to it. The subsidies have been removed from everything else why not forestry?

I believe that historically, forestry as an investment has always given a 4-6% return over inflation.

ihatetractors

At home the uncle planted 60 acres forestry on some off his lesser quality land, could have faught with it to make money from it but the offer for forestry is just so much better for the land for the return he will get... We can can whinge and whine about it :rolleyes: :rolleyes:, trust me its been done ALOT! . But at the time it's what would have made the best return.
If your so upset about that 100acre why didnt you make an offer of a longterm lease for it!!

treefan

Ireland has the lowest forestry cover in Europe yet some of the best conditions for growth. Aside from the environmental and wildlife benefits of forestry, the demand for timber is already exceeding what the country can produce and thus sitiation will only get more acute. The government should be doing more, not less to encourage more farmers to take the forestry route. For many, planting their land is good for them and good for the country.

Birdnuts

reilig wrote: »

.

Now don't get me wrong, I hate forestry. !!!

Thats a bit strong M8 - quality hardwoods will only continue to rise in value on the back of huge demand from China et al and supplies running out elsewhere. And that includes off-cuts for wood turning that can be got via thinnings at an early stage. Forestry doesn't have to involve getting out of convientional farming eithier since it can be implemented by planting areas like field corners and providing windbelts and the like

PS: As regards the notion that forestry is only for poor land - unfortunatly this policy has simply given rise to poor quality softwood products with low margins that are being increasingly replaced by recycleables anyway

hplp

im sorry to point this out too but...take the grants and subsidies away from farming and how economic would it be then?

H

mattthetrasher

6600 wrote: »

Ya fair enough but the steepness could be reduced a bit. When the tax-free premia is near enough the same as rent for good tillage land there's no competition.

I don't want to fall out with anyone over this, as I said its an emotive topic.

When I did the Teagasc ag course about 5 years ago the buzzwords were extensification, headage, REPS, off-farm investment and forestry. Commercial farming almost seemed irrelevant. Struck me then that any sort of real farmer was going to face an uphill battle in the years ahead when that was the way people were being pushed. Thankfully most of the above have gone or reduced and production is back on the agenda. The sky has not fallen in, the future is brighter now than it was then.

its harder to rent land now with the sfp ok the payment was decoupled from livestock but then just coupled it to land and made ground less free than it was 7 or8 years ago i planted 14 ha.s 5 years ago and rented good land instead no more heartbreak as for unfaif subsisidy do you mean you dont get a sfp if people did less groaning and more doing they would find it easier . if you reckon to yourself i cant do or get this its never going to happen if you see an obstacle you have 3 options over around it or through it not sit back and go its blocked all over now i never get abreak

Reader1937

When hardwood is planted it is generations later that get the benifit. It would grow well here and does, but the Chinese have bought the next (2?) harvests planted by the Government. You would have to love watching hardwood plantations grow and have an income from elsewhere to look at this one. It should be done, but who can do it?
The last scheme was back in the early 1800s when the then navy was getting upset about supply for ships. Plantations sprang up. Then metal hulls arrived and the scheme was dropped. The plantations didn't survive. The scheme would have to be ringfenced for the duration of growth. Then stagger harvesting with early staggered planting to give a sustainable system. Looks good but........

greenfingers89

Reader1937 wrote: »

It would grow well here and does, but the Chinese have bought the next (2?) harvests planted by the Government.

have you any more info on this or a link? just curious

Reader1937

Dear Greenfingers89 - some threads on the issue
http://www.cpaireland.ie/UserFiles/File/students/2012%20Examinations/Exam%20Related%20Articles/F1Ecomomics%20Selling%20the%20State%20Assets%20-%20some%20considerations%20Mods%20V0%201.pdf
http://www.williamfry.ie/publication-article/irish_government_announces_state_asset_sale.aspx
From the above dates I see that I was mistaken on the sale to the Chinese. I do seem to remember media comments on the "fact" of a sale of the harvest(s?) to the Chinese towords the end of the state visit there earlier this year. If it is the case, I am quite happy to be wrong on this one.

greenfingers89

ye twas the chinese thing i thought was incorrect, think its the swiss that are lining up a swoop through their board member bertie ahern

Reader1937

The Swiss, well thats ok then. Please pardon the sarcasm, its hard to think well of the situation. Nothing has been done about dealing with those who were the cause of the current situation (bar possible legal action within the next decade or two and definite rewards) and nothing is visible on doing anything to stop it happening again. Never mind, we'll be grand.