Does planting Trees actually deliver carbon capture

Agrivator

Member
A letter in today's Scottish farmer.

If this doesn't work, could someone provide a better link.

And could someone provide a precise of the salient points?
 

Attachments

  • Planting trees.jpeg
    Planting trees.jpeg
    451.7 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

Ffermer Bach

Member
Livestock Farmer
very well written letter, I totally agree, however I do not have the scientific references to back up my opinions. Remember, at the moment we have "group think" that trees=good, animals/meat=bad. and as I have posted here before, science advances one funeral at a time, so I fear the present orthodoxy will not change, until the presents "experts" are all dead and buried.
 
Location
southwest
Can't read the letter as I'm on a palm top, but my answer would be:

Yes, but it takes a couple of generations, planting or maintaining the same area as grassland would have a better, and more immediate effect. Anyone thinking planting a few thousand whips today could immediately cancel out the carbon footprint of even 1 jet plane flight is an idiot.
 

Y Fan Wen

Member
Location
N W Snowdonia
There are 2 'kinds' of carbon; the carbon that is part of the carbon cycle which goes round and round (clue's in the name) and the extracted carbon which comes from oil , coal and gas.
There is no point in fiddling with the carbon cycle until the problem of extracted carbon is dealt with.
Why do people have so much difficulty understanding this??
 

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria
There are 2 'kinds' of carbon; the carbon that is part of the carbon cycle which goes round and round (clue's in the name) and the extracted carbon which comes from oil , coal and gas.
There is no point in fiddling with the carbon cycle until the problem of extracted carbon is dealt with.
Why do people have so much difficulty understanding this??
I don't mind the hard of thinking not understanding this. I do mind govts setting policy on the basis of complete bollox.
 

Muddyroads

Member
NFFN Member
Location
Exeter, Devon
I too have serious doubts that trees will help anything.
Carbon release causing global warming fundamentally comes from burning oil, gas and coal, releasing GHG’s which have previously been locked away for millions of years. To a lesser degree, burning other carbon based fuels such as wood and straw will play a lesser part. The natural methane cycle, whether it’s from ruminants or rice, is just that, a cycle.
Anyone who thinks planting trees in this country will be a suitable replacement for those burnt in the Amazon is misguided, especially if they’re replacing permanent pasture.
Unless the timber from trees is used or locked away, any gain they give will be short lived.
What never seems to get mentioned is the likely viability of the trees now being planted. We have Dutch Elm, Sudden Oak Death and Ash Die Back. Our changing climate is only likely to lead to more tree diseases, particularly fungal attacks, which render the timber useless, so it either rots or gets burned, releas all the carbon back into the atmosphere.
 

Longlowdog

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Aberdeenshire
Woodlands do not need to be anaerobic to capture carbon. Yes vegetation rots but it is in symbiosis with fungal, yeast, worm, mammal, avian, insect, reptilian, etc production along with retention in timber. A wood is an ecosystem not a collection of trees. Even row cropped softwoods contribute to a capturing system that extends beyond yield class evaluation of timber gains. Further more calculations based on yield class growth take no account of leaf drop, fruit production, branch casting through shading etc during the life of the tree and make no consideration of lop and top remaining on the site at felling.
If a deer that would not previously inhabit an area is born and raised in a developing woodland it is capturing carbon, if a worm eats a leaf it is capturing carbon, likewise every bacteria, microbe and animal that belongs to that system.
I know my p.p builds soil because rocks visible 15 years ago are now covered with soil, but, my deciduous trees have one heck of a natural mulch below them. I wouldn't like to bet on which is the better performing system without a great deal of site specific research and evaluation.
 

Kiwi Pete

Member
Livestock Farmer
There are 2 'kinds' of carbon; the carbon that is part of the carbon cycle which goes round and round (clue's in the name) and the extracted carbon which comes from oil , coal and gas.
There is no point in fiddling with the carbon cycle until the problem of extracted carbon is dealt with.
Why do people have so much difficulty understanding this??
Because it simply doesn't suit - point the finger and the other fingers point back at you!
 

egbert

Member
Livestock Farmer
Woodlands do not need to be anaerobic to capture carbon. Yes vegetation rots but it is in symbiosis with fungal, yeast, worm, mammal, avian, insect, reptilian, etc production along with retention in timber. A wood is an ecosystem not a collection of trees. Even row cropped softwoods contribute to a capturing system that extends beyond yield class evaluation of timber gains. Further more calculations based on yield class growth take no account of leaf drop, fruit production, branch casting through shading etc during the life of the tree and make no consideration of lop and top remaining on the site at felling.
If a deer that would not previously inhabit an area is born and raised in a developing woodland it is capturing carbon, if a worm eats a leaf it is capturing carbon, likewise every bacteria, microbe and animal that belongs to that system.
I know my p.p builds soil because rocks visible 15 years ago are now covered with soil, but, my deciduous trees have one heck of a natural mulch below them. I wouldn't like to bet on which is the better performing system without a great deal of site specific research and evaluation.
You're following it through well, - and it's very good that several here are thinking about/grasping some of the building blocks of what happens when you plant trees/burn oil.
And the OP letter is a good one- if open to discussion. (like...where will the carbon come from in a second crop of trees grown on former arable?)

But something I'm watching, and thinking about, is the long term storage. (decades/centuries...which i realise is a bit pathetic given the origin of the oil)
The boulders still poke through very ancient forests I've rummaged around, suggesting a carbon cycle involving the complex biome (is that the word?) once a forest has built carbon to a point, has a ceiling.
I can't find meters deep soil grown through sequestration anywhere short of saturated peat.

And where I've seen increased OM on my own pasture, the ground quickly becomes hugely unstable- it poaches (cattle) and/or ruts (tractors) very easily.
Oh, and I've planted woodland where canopy closure has left soil more vulnerable to erosion than it seemed before.

At the very least, it's complicated, and merely a smokescreen for the continued burning of fossil fuel.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
A paper released last year (don't have the reference to hand) found typical modern forestry planting techniques lead to significant release of stored carbon when used in grassland sites, such that it takes over 20 years for the trees to make up for it.

It looks increasingly like the evidence shows planting trees to replace established pasture is a serious mistake in climate terms.
 
Last edited:

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria
Indeed, it's yet another example of a little knowledge being promoted far and wide being a dangerous thing. And again, what happens to these trees in 50-100 years time? That's the absolutely crucial part which absolutely no one dares to tell us because thay haven't even thought that far ahead. Fossil fuels and humans, that's what really matters.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.0%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 35.1%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.0%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,291
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top