30,000 acres per year for trees 2024.

[Hilly]

For every acre of land that was used to grow crops will have to be replaced by imports. That means it will to shipped here instead because it has to be replaced.

They talk about trees? They are cutting down trees as fast as possible to chip for biomass boilers. The places I know of that got them fitted are being paid by what they burn. They leave the windows open and run them flat out all year round.

The government's environmental policies are a complete and utter joke

The Government either have some
Cunning plan or they really are as thick as sh!t , as thick as sh!t is where my bet is going .

 

[Castle Farm]

Well! we could start by planting up all the non-productive land.
Football fields.
Tennis courts.
Golf Clubs.
Parks.
Larger private Gardens.
All National trust land.

 

[Danllan]

Know of 1 and been told of 2 other farms, all good productive cropped farms, that have been bought in the last 8 weeks in the county by non farmers to plant trees to offset thier industrial enterprises. Also heard of a farmer who planted just a few acres of trees for a grant and now he cant cut them down without planning as they have exceeded a certain diameter and the land has been changed from agricultural use to forestry/woodland or simular so he would need to try and change it back to include it back into his farm.......

I haven't researched this but, knowing how the bureaucratic mind works, I am sure there is a specific density of trees that count as forest - just one less per acre and there won't be a problem.

 

[farmerm]

Thank goodness the UK has low land prices and low productivity and by planting 30,0000ha of trees a year we will save the world.... oh wait!

There is certainly some land in the UK that would be better planted with trees but it should be a criminal act to plant trees on good productive agricultural land in the UK. We have a global problem, we need global solutions. It is pure stupidity to put trees on land that can produce 10 units of food per ha in one place whilst simultaneous felling mature forest elsewhere to release land capable of producing barely 1 unit of food per ha. For an intelligent species we aint half thick For the same investment required to plant 30,000ha of trees in the UK, 1million ha of rainforest could be protected from deforestation!!

 

[Steevo]

I haven't researched this but, knowing how the bureaucratic mind works, I am sure there is a specific density of trees that count as forest - just one less per acre and there won't be a problem.

Sadly not. A felling license is needed for felling any tree over 7cm in diameter at 1.3m high, unless it’s actually dangerous, or up to 5cu.m of wood per calendar quarter.

The above doesn’t apply to councils, utility or rail companies, or sites with planning permission.

 

[Danllan]

Sadly not. A felling license is needed for felling any tree over 7cm in diameter at 1.3m high, unless it’s actually dangerous, or up to 5cu.m of wood per calendar quarter.

The above doesn’t apply to councils, utility or rail companies, or sites with planning permission.

Entirely right, just been reading up on it, and am astonished that there isn't a defined density.

On the bright side, lightning is an entirely random thing, and ash die-back etc. aren't...

 

[toquark]

Ok lets just get a little perspective here, the UK is one of the least forested parts of the world, currently around 13% cover, compared to France at 36% and an EU average of 38%. So is there room for more trees? Absolutely. Does it mean the end of agriculture? Absolutely not. I'm in the most heavily wooded part of the country, we're at about 36% woodland cover and there's still a mart in every town and a very vibrant agricultural industry.

The tricky bit will be to make sure the right ground gets planted. Land values around here have shot up by 200% in 5 years mainly driven by forestry, which means hill land is now on a par value wise with decent croppable land, this is leading forestry companies into buying good farms for the same money per acre as rubbish hill land. This is a mistake in my view.

 

[jg123]

I guess the farmers that sold to the industrial companies must have thought it a good idea. Driving up the price of land is a good thing if you want to sell.

Not many farmers will sell to a low bidder as they prefer thier business model, probably a small minority.

 

[jg123]

I haven't researched this but, knowing how the bureaucratic mind works, I am sure there is a specific density of trees that count as forest - just one less per acre and there won't be a problem.

Im really not sure not looked into it. Just know he was having problems removing established trees and if done without permission could potentially have big fines

 

[Henarar]

The first question to spring to my mind is WHY ?
Why are they planting trees ? what's the aim

The second thing to spring to mind is if they must do it given the the "climate crisis" I hope they are not using well managed permanent pasture for this and showing a bit of sense and using arable land, after all PP is better at squesting carbon and meat is better for us and the environment than bread

 

[Greythundercloudys]

Heard that even hill land suitable for planting is £5k an acre now.

Farm not far from me and probably the forestery will buy.

 

[farmerm]

Ok lets just get a little perspective here, the UK is one of the least forested parts of the world, currently around 13% cover, compared to France at 36% and an EU average of 38%. So is there room for more trees? Absolutely. Does it mean the end of agriculture? Absolutely not. I'm in the most heavily wooded part of the country, we're at about 36% woodland cover and there's still a mart in every town and a very vibrant agricultural industry.

The tricky bit will be to make sure the right ground gets planted. Land values around here have shot up by 200% in 5 years mainly driven by forestry, which means hill land is now on a par value wise with decent croppable land, this is leading forestry companies into buying good farms for the same money per acre as rubbish hill land. This is a mistake in my view.

To get some more perspective, the UK has long been one of the the least forested parts of Europe, in no small part due to our topography being quite benign... Listening to BBC4 more or less program recently I think they said the UK actually has more woodland now than it did at the start of the industrial revolution, surely something few countries can claim! I can't state it enough, the UK offers exceptionally poor value for money if the aim is maximizing tree planting to capture carbon.

 

[tje]

Ok lets just get a little perspective here, the UK is one of the least forested parts of the world, currently around 13% cover, compared to France at 36% and an EU average of 38%. So is there room for more trees? Absolutely. Does it mean the end of agriculture? Absolutely not. I'm in the most heavily wooded part of the country, we're at about 36% woodland cover and there's still a mart in every town and a very vibrant agricultural industry.

The tricky bit will be to make sure the right ground gets planted. Land values around here have shot up by 200% in 5 years mainly driven by forestry, which means hill land is now on a par value wise with decent croppable land, this is leading forestry companies into buying good farms for the same money per acre as rubbish hill land. This is a mistake in my view.

The population density of the UK is one the highest in Europe , especially England and especially the south east of England . I know no trees are going to be planted around here mainly because of the rate its disappearing under concrete ....

 

[Derrick Hughes]

So the tree stores carbon , what happens when you cut the tree down or it dies ,

 

[Macsky]

so 30,000ha planting would lead to a decrease in UK farmland by 1% ever 3 years?

1% is a lot.
1% of uk population is 60,000 people, that’s a lot.
1% reduction in weaning rate on a 700 ewe flock lambing at 130%, selling at £100/ head is the best part of £1000, it’s significant.

 

[tepapa]

So the tree stores carbon , what happens when you cut the tree down or it dies ,

If it's burnt at drax it's a carbon neutral energy source.

 

[hoff135]

Sadly not. A felling license is needed for felling any tree over 7cm in diameter at 1.3m high, unless it’s actually dangerous, or up to 5cu.m of wood per calendar quarter.

The above doesn’t apply to councils, utility or rail companies, or sites with planning permission.

Network rail cut down about 200 large broadleaf trees here a couple of years ago. They would have been planted 150 years ago when the track went in. I was told a stone rolled down beside the track and some expert blamed the trees so the lot had to go and they netted the bank. What was once quite an attractive feature leading into local village id now an eyesore

 

[Farma Parma]

Cant put up many Trees on a AHA tenancy farm they wont allow it! like a 10ac block if you use that as a small example.
Put maybes a few in a bad corner of a field yeah but thats not going to earn you anything.
we are very limited to what we can do other than Crops n Animals on all this land here & the surrounding farms all on same Estate are no different.
Cant do wind turbines nor solar arrays in a field.
AD Plants i couldnt even tell you were there is such a thing anywhere near me.
Not even on the farmer owned places & there is quite a mix of both

 

[egbert]

Tenants cant get into forestry , all trees belong to landlord
Who is going to pay for redraining in ten yrs when govt realises its mistake?

speak for yourself.
My tenancy has provision for timber that is a 'tenants crop'.
I got it put in 30 years ago, and am always bemused that no-one has asked for the model, as it's the obvious way to go.

What redraining?
Is every bit of ground planted needing draining?
Where they are, I thought the plantations were drained more than open hill grazing?

 

[toquark]

To get some more perspective, the UK has long been one of the the least forested parts of Europe, in no small part due to our topography being quite benign... Listening to BBC4 more or less program recently I think they said the UK actually has more woodland now than it did at the start of the industrial revolution, surely something few countries can claim! I can't state it enough, the UK offers exceptionally poor value for money if the aim is maximizing tree planting to capture carbon.

The UK was deforested largely due to being the first country to industrialise, a lot of wood was also cut to build ships to keep the rest of Europe out - which went on right up until WW2. It's benign topography has little to do with it, most of Europe has very comparable topography and indeed is much flatter in places.

There was a big push for planting following WW1 when we very nearly lost the war due to not being able to mine coal which at that time relied on timber props. And again after WW2. So yes woodland has recovered from a low of I think about 5% up to 13% today.

Frankly I don't give a fig about carbon capture, and I agree that planting trees to mitigate carbon emissions is a complete con. But from an economic point of view for most of upland Britain, trees offer a very valuable diversification for farmers, if only many could see it.