Trees - the fantasy and the reality

[glasshouse]

I'm disputing none of that.
What I'm pointing out is that the UK finances are still likely far better off overall.
The balance of payments improvement effected by those monster BSW mills et al must be huge....really monstrous.

The mistake, if we could reset the clock, was to allow the tax breaks that put the growing all in the hands of outside money,
then we needed to have involved the local community in the business from the off.
Perhaps redirected some HLCA into planting and maintenance grants, with training in silviculture being obligatory.
Get 'us' involved and seeing a benefit.
I suppose land ownership is an issue where we're talking tenants/estates....but that's waaaay more difficult to unravel.

And I would point out that an awful lot of hill ewes have also gone from land unplanted - I see masses of hill unstocked now when I'm travelling-, suggesting it ain't just the tree cover that's caused those deserted areas.
Lack of profitability, and labour prepared to go out on the hill is an issue. (funnily enough, that's the same in timber harvesting....very few want to handcut now, leading to ever greater use of big harvesters).

Hey ho.
It was that lack of forward thinking - in an otherwise good bit of forward thinking-, that has left the animosity and disjointed views.

If the govt gassed all thr rural people and planted trees from coast to coast i am sure the finances would also look good

 

[Nithsdale]

Yes but the first time is was for sheep at the expense of people.

not sure about the Highlands but Dartmoor was a forest originally.

Those ancient forests weren't dense monoculture Sitka plantations though... which is where we are heading despite what Treeman Tam tries to claim

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Those ancient forests weren't dense monoculture Sitka plantations though... which is where we are heading despite what Treeman Tam tries to claim

Isabella Tree's book, puts pay to the idea that the UK was wall to wall trees, it was an open savannah, with interspersed copses of trees and wetland habitat. Kept that way by browsing ruminants, who in turn were kept moving by apex predators.

 

[Funny Farmer]

Isabella Tree's book, puts pay to the idea that the UK was wall to wall trees, it was an open savannah, with interspersed copses of trees and wetland habitat. Kept that way by browsing ruminants, who in turn were kept moving by apex predators.

There was something like 75% tree cover at peak.

 

[egbert]

Not for the first time, you do waffle on to try and say the contrary of what I say, then chuck in admission to what I've said...

I'll stop then. You hate sitka, and that's fine.

 

[egbert]

Yes but the first time is was for sheep at the expense of people.

not sure about the Highlands but Dartmoor was a forest originally.

...for a brief post ice-age period.. 'Forest' referred to its legal status rather than tree cover. Been cleared for 7-8000 years

 

[DaveGrohl]

View attachment 1034629

Did you not see the OP? Or is your memory as bad as mine

 

[Pilatus]

Did you not see the OP? Or is your memory as bad as mine

Must have been the general anaesthetic that I had last Wednesday confusing my mind more than normal!

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Can take some time though, I have pulled out big "bog oak" trunks that are 10,000 years old!

True, but nobody is going to plant oaks to let them sink into a bog.

The corporate land buyers are buying to plant Sitka Dougkas Fir and Larch, claim carbon credits then harvest them after 30-50 years to lumber (which might only last 50 years in a modern build before being rolled out again) / woodchip and start again so simply cycling the carbon octet that y timescale (before you add in the fossil fuel use in the harvesting, processing, transport etc).

 

[Funny Farmer]

True, but nobody is going to plant oaks to let them sink into a bog.

The corporate land buyers are buying to plant Sitka Dougkas Fir and Larch, claim carbon credits then harvest them after 30-50 years to lumber (which might only last 50 years in a modern build before being rolled out again) / woodchip and start again so simply cycling the carbon octet that y timescale (before you add in the fossil fuel use in the harvesting, processing, transport etc).

If timber goes into construction then it's carbon is going to be tied up indefinably, look at all the medieval buildings that are still about, wood that took 150 years to grow and has been in use for 1000 years or more. Even modern houses built with quick grown softwood are going to be around much longer than the time it took to grow the wood. In the late 70s and 80s Barrett were throwing houses up all chipboard and thin white woods people thought they were built to such a low standard that they wouldn't last long, needless to say they are still standing and will likely continue to do so. Wholesale harvesting of trees just to burn is probably not much better than using coal or gas.

 

[DaveGrohl]

If timber goes into construction then it's carbon is going to be tied up indefinably, look at all the medieval buildings that are still about, wood that took 150 years to grow and has been in use for 1000 years or more. Even modern houses built with quick grown softwood are going to be around much longer than the time it took to grow the wood. In the late 70s and 80s Barrett were throwing houses up all chipboard and thin white woods people thought they were built to such a low standard that they wouldn't last long, needless to say they are still standing and will likely continue to do so. Wholesale harvesting of trees just to burn is probably not much better than using coal or gas.

And what about all of the land that was cleared of all the huge quantities of sequestered carbon material in order to build these new homes that apparently have carbon locked in for all time? And the fact that that land can no longer sequester any carbon. They are now a pure emitter because they just stand there primarily emitting fossil fuel carbon. Or the homes that are demolished for new ones that had timber inside them which now returns to CO2. And what about all the fossil fuels that are dug up and burnt in the entire process of building these things? I’d love to see your full Life Cycle Analysis. Care to share it?

Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with using timber as such but the idea that houses are a carbon sink is frankly comical.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

If timber goes into construction then it's carbon is going to be tied up indefinably, look at all the medieval buildings that are still about, wood that took 150 years to grow and has been in use for 1000 years or more. Even modern houses built with quick grown softwood are going to be around much longer than the time it took to grow the wood. In the late 70s and 80s Barrett were throwing houses up all chipboard and thin white woods people thought they were built to such a low standard that they wouldn't last long, needless to say they are still standing and will likely continue to do so. Wholesale harvesting of trees just to burn is probably not much better than using coal or gas.

Quick Google, timber frame houses are expected to last just longer than the mortgage! Maybe 40 years!

Builders in Eastbourne, Builders in Heathfield, Property Extension in Eastbourne

Professional builders, Avant-Garde Construction Group offers property extensions and other quality building services to clients in Eastbourne and Heathfield.

www.ag-cg.co.uk

 

[Ffermer Bach]

And what about all of the land that was cleared of all the huge quantities of sequestered carbon material in order to build these new homes that apparently have carbon locked in for all time? And the fact that that land can no longer sequester any carbon. They are now a pure emitter because they just stand there primarily emitting fossil fuel carbon. Or the homes that are demolished for new ones that had timber inside them which now returns to CO2. And what about all the fossil fuels that are dug up and burnt in the entire process of building these things? I’d love to see your full Life Cycle Analysis. Care to share it?

Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with using timber as such but the idea that houses are a carbon sink is frankly comical.

I think the energy use in the production of a house is the biggie, brick house -energy costs of cement, so in my mind we should ideally be building in cob or straw bale.

 

[Funny Farmer]

Quick Google, timber frame houses are expected to last just longer than the mortgage! Maybe 40 years!

Builders in Eastbourne, Builders in Heathfield, Property Extension in Eastbourne

Professional builders, Avant-Garde Construction Group offers property extensions and other quality building services to clients in Eastbourne and Heathfield.

www.ag-cg.co.uk

LOL - my brick farmhouse should have fallen down by about 1840 then!

 

[Ffermer Bach]

LOL - my brick farmhouse should have fallen down by about 1840 then!

problem is, if there is a problem with a timber frame it is very intrusive to repair or replace

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

If timber goes into construction then it's carbon is going to be tied up indefinably, look at all the medieval buildings that are still about, wood that took 150 years to grow and has been in use for 1000 years or more. Even modern houses built with quick grown softwood are going to be around much longer than the time it took to grow the wood. In the late 70s and 80s Barrett were throwing houses up all chipboard and thin white woods people thought they were built to such a low standard that they wouldn't last long, needless to say they are still standing and will likely continue to do so. Wholesale harvesting of trees just to burn is probably not much better than using coal or gas.

I agree that the historic oak framed houses are a fantastic use of timber in building. How many modern timber homes use UK hardwood?

There ARE companies building in hardwood in the UK but they are a very niche product, almost solely reserved to the self-build market.

I have seen plenty of examples of softwood used in modern building which has been ripped out again within 30 years....

As just one example: how many new kitchens are still in place 30 years later these days?

Building with wood is a good thing.....

If it is done sustainably.

 

[egbert]

I think the energy use in the production of a house is the biggie, brick house -energy costs of cement, so in my mind we should ideally be building in cob or straw bale.

Oak frame...simples.
Twice the price of softwood, but can be banged together by muppet with a mallet and a chisel, the raw material will probably be growing in a steep valley somewhere local, and with a roof on it's head and dry feet, it'll last for centuries.
(it'll even forgive you if a future generation lets the roof blow off for a year or two....as opposed to 'structural' OSB etc, which will be failed inside a generation).

 

[Ffermer Bach]

There was something like 75% tree cover at peak.

it all depends how long we wish to go back!

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Who chopped down Britain’s ancient forests? | Aeon Essays

We picture ancient Britain as a land of enchanted forests. That’s a fantasy: axes have been ringing for a very long time

aeon.co