Trees - the fantasy and the reality

Dry Rot · May 5, 2022

Homesy said:
So, you're planting trees to sequester carbon then cutting them down for logs ???
explain how this helps to reduce CO2

But that's not how it's done, is it?

The trees are cut down, then the logs transported long distance to be chipped and the chips are burn to generate electricity using an awful lot of fuel and machinery in the process. Oh, and just to make it seem worthwhile, I gather huge subsidies are needed. Madness!

Dry Rot · May 5, 2022

jondear said:
Looking at lots of trees around here lots are dieing

But apparently that's OK because the carbon is locked up in 'em. No one seems to recognise that there will be bugs and microbes rotting that timber down and in that process they are generating carbon which is released into the atmosphere. Bugs and microbes digest the wood to release energy and the only thing that makes that different from farting belching cows is size.

It's about time the government paid a negative family allowance because the human population explosion is out of control.

Pilatus · May 5, 2022

If I plant “x”amount ha’s to grass or arable crops with in 9/18mths I will have had an income from those ha’s.
If I plant a new plantation on the same amount of ha’s, I will have no income for 29yrs or so, apart from any grants etc I can claim on the new plantation.
So to survive I think I would rather go with growing the arable crops or grass,I appreciate I may not make profit on the arable or grass apart from the small area payment.
Just trying to make the point that forestry is long term and one definitely needs another income stream to subsidise it for 20 years or whenever one takes first thinnings for sale. Perhaps some would care to comment .

Guleesh · May 5, 2022

MX7 said:
If I plant “x”amount ha’s to grass or arable crops with in 9/18mths I will have had an income from those ha’s.
If I plant a new plantation on the same amount of ha’s, I will have no income for 29yrs or so, apart from any grants etc I can claim on the new plantation.
So to survive I think I would rather go with growing the arable crops or grass,I appreciate I may not make profit on the arable or grass apart from the small area payment.
Just trying to make the point that forestry is long term and one definitely needs another income stream to subsidise it for 20 years or whenever one takes first thinnings for sale. Perhaps some would care to comment .

This is the outcome after a century of the extraction of, rather than management of resources. Woodland is is a resource, as is arable land, as is pastureland, and indeed rough hill grazing. These resources need continual and careful long term management over generations, in order to maintain a continual harvestable surplus, not the short term extraction that has been practiced to some extent in all land resources mentioned. Once they're gone they're not exactly easy to replace.

I blame government interference, mostly done through subsidies.

Pilatus · May 5, 2022

Slightly off topic.
I heard that the Forestry Commission,have being using a computer model ( whatever that is ,I am not computer literate)for predicting the sustainability of how much timber they could harvest. Unfortunately they have now realised that the computer model was incorrect and that they have been harvesting a lot more than is sustainable!!!
Is the above true or not,thanks.

Ffermer Bach · May 5, 2022

Dry Rot said:
But apparently that's OK because the carbon is locked up in 'em. No one seems to recognise that there will be bugs and microbes rotting that timber down and in that process they are generating carbon which is released into the atmosphere. Bugs and microbes digest the wood to release energy and the only thing that makes that different from farting belching cows is size.

It's about time the government paid a negative family allowance because the human population explosion is out of control.

we have a decreasing birth rate in the West, the population explosion is in Nigeria and West Africa, Africa is the continent that needs to reduce family sizes. All our population growth is from first generation migrants mainly.

Ffermer Bach · May 5, 2022

MX7 said:
If I plant “x”amount ha’s to grass or arable crops with in 9/18mths I will have had an income from those ha’s.
If I plant a new plantation on the same amount of ha’s, I will have no income for 29yrs or so, apart from any grants etc I can claim on the new plantation.
So to survive I think I would rather go with growing the arable crops or grass,I appreciate I may not make profit on the arable or grass apart from the small area payment.
Just trying to make the point that forestry is long term and one definitely needs another income stream to subsidise it for 20 years or whenever one takes first thinnings for sale. Perhaps some would care to comment .

I would love to benefit from income in 29 years time, but at almost 60, with the best will in the world, I don't think I will!

Guleesh · May 5, 2022

MX7 said:
Slightly off topic.
I heard that the Forestry Commission,have being using a computer model ( whatever that is ,I am not computer literate)for predicting the sustainability of how much timber they could harvest. Unfortunately they have now realised that the computer model was incorrect and that they have been harvesting a lot more than is sustainable!!!
Is the above true or not,thanks.

But you are viewing the area of land as simply something you can use to take a crop off. planting an area of trees with the view of cropping the whole lot off in X years, that's not management but pure extraction from the land in my view. That's the mindset of where we're at.

Funny Farmer · May 5, 2022

MX7 said:
If I plant “x”amount ha’s to grass or arable crops with in 9/18mths I will have had an income from those ha’s.
If I plant a new plantation on the same amount of ha’s, I will have no income for 29yrs or so, apart from any grants etc I can claim on the new plantation.
So to survive I think I would rather go with growing the arable crops or grass,I appreciate I may not make profit on the arable or grass apart from the small area payment.
Just trying to make the point that forestry is long term and one definitely needs another income stream to subsidise it for 20 years or whenever one takes first thinnings for sale. Perhaps some would care to comment .

I've heard up to £10K per ha in grants is available so that would surely sweeten things for those with marginal land.

Nithsdale · May 5, 2022

Funny Farmer said:
I've heard up to £10K per ha in grants is available so that would surely sweeten things for those with marginal land.

The grants are the only reason any trees are being planted because the figures do not stack up otherwise

Funny Farmer · May 5, 2022

Nithsdale Farmer said:
The grants are the only reason any trees are being planted because the figures do not stack up otherwise

Don't overlook that after 20 years or so you could be harvesting £000,s from each ha every year.

It maybe because the average age of farmers in this country is so high that there is some reluctance to consider long term projects like forestry.

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

Nithsdale · May 5, 2022

Funny Farmer said:
Don't overlook that after 20 years or so you could be harvesting £000,s from each ha every year.

It maybe because the average age of farmers in this country is so high that there is some reluctance to consider long term projects like forestry.

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

So all these big estates are making millions from their humble trees??

Pull the other one

Poorbuthappy · May 5, 2022

egbert said:
If I'd planted the whole place as a young man, I'd now be turning over hundreds of thousands a year in round timber sales.

But what would that land have earned you in the interim? Next to nothing I presume?
How much would establishment and management have cost over the last 30 odd years ?
What has that land actually earned over that time? Very little in livestock income you'll say no doubt. Subsidy?

Poorbuthappy · May 5, 2022

Poorbuthappy said:
But what would that land have earned you in the interim? Next to nothing I presume?
How much would establishment and management have cost over the last 30 odd years ?
What has that land actually earned over that time? Very little in livestock income you'll say no doubt. Subsidy?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for planting trees. We're doing it here.
But blanket monoculture Sitka or the likes?

egbert · May 5, 2022

Homesy said:
second paragraph post #15 you seemed to be insinuating that. My mistake.

I take your point.

glasshouse said:
All subsidy driven for burning

glasshouse said:
It would be better to burn coal than trees.

No subsidies in my timber processing at all I'm afraid......simple commerce.
You could argue that my round timber suppliers have benefitted from subs -and knowing you, you will.

Burning coal better than burning wood?
Cobblers...it's carbon that was laid down 350 MILLION years ago, in a world that no longer exists.
Burning fossil fuels is changing our world in ways we've barely come to terms with.
Burning wood - harvesting method notwithstanding- is a short simple loop, like cow burps.

Dry Rot · May 5, 2022

Ffermer Bach said:
we have a decreasing birth rate in the West, the population explosion is in Nigeria and West Africa, Africa is the continent that needs to reduce family sizes. All our population growth is from first generation migrants mainly.

It is still growth. If I am in a tank of water that is filling up and there is no escape, eventually I'm going to drown. That rate at which the tank fills is ultimately irrelevant as my fate is going to be the same.

Ffermer Bach · May 5, 2022

Funny Farmer said:
Don't overlook that after 20 years or so you could be harvesting £000,s from each ha every year.

It maybe because the average age of farmers in this country is so high that there is some reluctance to consider long term projects like forestry.

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

personally I would never want to sit in the shade of a Sitka plantation, would you?

egbert · May 5, 2022

Poorbuthappy said:
But what would that land have earned you in the interim? Next to nothing I presume?
How much would establishment and management have cost over the last 30 odd years ?
What has that land actually earned over that time? Very little in livestock income you'll say no doubt. Subsidy?

Ah....and hence why so little is planted. Well, that and the fact I'm a tenant.

I've crunched the numbers all ways, and a mixed age rotation is a very sound income on a diversified property.
Indeed, some estates I buy from, if management is good and marketing flexible, are coining it.

Kiwi Pete said:
Good post - I believe "blanket statements are wrecking the conversations" TBH

Some say that grazing livestock "is the answer" but TBH a lot of "grazing" is restricting what's actually "possible for that acre" - so that's simplistic and likely not "the anwer" at all

(eg who would plant random trees in a paddock, when it would just be a nuisance to mow - rake - bale - spread - drill - plough around?
Hence the way we do things matters)

Planting a whole farm's worth in one year and then clearfelling in 28 years it is hardly the "pinnacle" either, seems to be an awful lot of that still going on down here unfortunately, again it's far from "the answer"

when you look at the water quality that comes out of it and the limitations of these models, it almost seems to follow that we need more 'some of this and some of this and even some of this' going on even if it is harder to manage than simple monocultures

The de facto softwood management on a lot of UK upland is pants....a race to the bottom.
It's generally wall to wall sitka ( not unreasonable since it's the 'go to' species to make volume on exposed and wet sites), planted as unsympathetically as it's possible to do.
And then, instead of any hint of silviculture, it's left for 30-40 years (or until half of it blows over) then clearcut from the seat of great big willy waving harvesters.
The product is a nicely uniform garbage, sites that look like the battle of the Somme, the lifetime yield is less than half what it should be, and the bio-diversity ....er...isn't.
Couple that to it often being owned by absentee owners, and 'managed' by cutthroat corporates, and the work done by lads from miles away....local feelings often run high..

Humble Village Farmer · May 5, 2022

Bury the Trash said:
i dont either , least for ones we have, as theres no finer place to rest your back against with a cool glass of cider out of the sun on a hot summers eve.
and heats our house without any oil or gas use in winter., minus a bit for the saws and splitter tractor i guess.

If the soil is warm and you get it in well it should come to something

Bury the Trash · May 5, 2022

Humble Village Farmer said:
If the soil is warm and you get it in well it should come to something

but yes the most recently planted Alder by the river are growing /in leaf looks like, having been fenced from livestock and no rabbits are nearby

Trees - the fantasy and the reality

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."​

Member

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."​

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."​

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."