Along run through Meath and adjoining counties recently gave splendid views over winter fieldscapes, now that the leaves are all gone. And often, way into the distance, the most remarkable feature was the distortion of the outline of magnificent trees by huge lumps of ivy. Aesthetically that's probably the worst drawback of ivy, and this is the season when it is seen to be most obtrusive. But the farmer may have matters other than aesthetics on his mind.
The pro and con of ivy is an old, old argument and one of the most sensible letters in the controversy appeared in Horticulture Week, the voice of the trade so to speak, published in Britain. Mr Briony Davies, a landscape planting consultant of Gwynedd in Wales, put it in a nutshell when he wrote that ivy should be managed, not killed off. He acknowledges that it has to be good "if this powerful plant is to be prevented from becoming overwhelming and dangerous". Holly, ivy and oak, he selects, as all providing balanced ecological habitats for birds, mammals and many insects in natural woodland. And there is no reason why ivy should not be planted up a tree, he holds, provided it is done with forethought and intelligence.
It is one of the last plants of the season to flower well into the frost season, thus giving a valuable nectar source for insects and especially rare moths. And then it provides berries, keeping many birds fed in the colder months, when food is hard to come by.
"It could be assumed that it is not in the interests of the ivy to kill its host tree. Crucially, because ivy actually needs less nutrients than its host, it can outlive the tree when the nutrition in the surrounding ground is exhausted. If the ivy is killed off, the last remaining nutrients are taken up by the tree." And, maybe trailing his coat a little, he goes on, "A thorough mulching might produce interesting results without harming tree or ivy - surely management will always be better than blanket destruction".
Then, too, there is Ivy Day and Parnell - perhaps for another day. "