- Location
- Essex
Sorry posted in the wrong thread
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
Sorry posted in the wrong thread
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
So what are you planting ?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.
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..
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..
Have you seen the price of wood recently!So all these big estates are making millions from their humble trees?? Pull the other one
BolloxI take your point.
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.
and what that wants/needs is effective preservatives ,or at least ongoing developement of ,Trees cut up and used in a housebuild are locked up carbon for 200 plus years
Thats what we want
I wish housebuilding was 200 years, but I fear it would probably average out nearer 50!Bollox
Trees cut up and used in a housebuild are locked up carbon for 200 plus years
Thats what we want
Trees burnt for heating tractor sheds are worse than burning coal
and what that wants/needs is effective preservatives ,or at least ongoing developement of ,
like galvanising of steel.
to much theoretical nonsense /distractions these days instead of useful long term real practical useful resource saving stuff done.
Stop sidetracking!!!!!!I wish housebuilding was 200 years, but I fear it would probably average out nearer 50!
Stop sidetracking!!!!!!
Timber locks up carbon in buildings etc, but doesnt lock up any when burnt for subsidy
Bollox
Trees cut up and used in a housebuild are locked up carbon for 200 plus years
Thats what we want
Trees burnt for heating tractor sheds are worse than burning coal
I am certainly supplying some timber which will be in service in 200 years.I wish housebuilding was 200 years, but I fear it would probably average out nearer 50!
Taking a balanced view, I would observe that the sitka cloaks across D&G, borders, bits of N Wales et al are creating a very big industry.We are in agreement - and it is this type of forestry I'm am dead against. Yet it is sadly exactly what you've written, is what the UK Govts targets and grants create - which is no good to man or beast!
It's a very big subject....So what are you planting ?
My kids have just inherited some woodland would like know more.
Taking a balanced view, I would observe that the sitka cloaks across D&G, borders, bits of N Wales et al are creating a very big industry.
I've tried- and failed- to try and find the direct employment figures, acre for acre, but I suspect there's more jobs all told than the land supported prior to planting.
(one of the obstacles in nailing the numbers down is that it involves several corporates, which aren't very forthcoming.
My ideal would be far more integration with ag, which defuses the animosity, and basic silviculture being a required part of any ag college course.
(But my application to be made emperor was returned)
It would be better to burn coal than trees.
"Too many people also tend to see wood as better than oil or coal because the amount of CO₂ produced by burning a given unit is much lower for wood. But this overlooks the fact that you get considerably more heat from burning a unit of oil or coal than from wood. In other words, you have to burn much more wood to produce the same amount of heat, so the carbon emissions are actually much more than they appear. This leads people to greatly underestimate the amount of land we will need for trees if biomass power is to become a much bigger part of the energy mix. The Drax plant alone uses more wood than the UK produces every year, for instance."
The chipping and shipping uses more fossil fuel than.... just using fossil fuels.
Welcome to the crazy world of computer modelling. The model’s only any use if the assumptions that are put in are any good. Crap in crap out. See also farm carbon toolkits, climate modelling, and myriad other examples.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.
Trees burnt for heating tractor sheds are worse than burning coal
It will ultimately return to CO2 though.Isn't there a wooden church in Norway that's 1000 years or so old? just a coat of whale oil every few years for preservative.