Trees - the fantasy and the reality

[DaveGrohl]

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

Just the 200 years then? Is 200 years relevant on a planetary scale?

And why is burning trees in a tractor shed worse than coal? Burning wood is cyclical. Burning coal isn‘t. Well it is if your timescale is hundreds of millions of years.

 

[Funny Farmer]

Yes!!
If I burn coal only in my cottage I use about 2/3 of a tonne to do all winter.

When I burn wood (seasoned hardwood - I clear all the farm windblown) I go through several tonn

It will ultimately return to CO2 though.

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

 

[FonterraFarmer]

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

Please redirect to the bimbo on the 9th floor!!!

 

[DaveGrohl]

"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.

You’re confusing burning wood with burning wood as it’s practised via Drax. The first is climate neutral, the second isn’t. Therefore it’s a good job we don’t have to choose between Drax and coal. Neither is sustainable.

 

[egbert]

Those forestry jobs are not local and do not keep rural communities alive. You can walk the Galloway Forest, see the farms which are gone. The families in those glens kept the local shop and school going - all lost to support some unknown face in a city who manages the area...

The (highland) Clearances are thought of as happening a long time ago - I can tell you for nothing, they are still happening

and hence the animosity. It's a great shame.

I've travelled, trudging along the side of the road, in countries where it's not like that...and it's a revelation.

 

[Hjwise]

Just the 200 years then? Is 200 years relevant on a planetary scale?

And why is burning trees in a tractor shed worse than coal? Burning wood is cyclical. Burning coal isn‘t. Well it is if your timescale is hundreds of millions of years.

I think what @glasshouse is getting that is that all manner of sheds are being heated by subsidised wood that no one in their right mind would heat by coal.

 

[DaveGrohl]

I think what @glasshouse is getting that is that all manner of sheds are being heated by subsidised wood that no one in their right mind would heat by coal.

Well if that’s what was meant then maybe the problem is the subsidy and not the material dya think?

 

[glasshouse]

Well if that’s what was meant then maybe the problem is the subsidy and not the material dya think?

Its all the subsidy to blame
No one would burn wood to heat a house and leave the windows open otherwise

 

[DaveGrohl]

Its all the subsidy to blame
No one would burn wood to heat a house and leave the windows open otherwise

So it’s not the wood burning as such then? Thanks for the clarification.…

 

[puppet]

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)

You would think that all those poor hill farms made little difference but as stated above when they were lost there was a huge impact on fragile rural areas, not just financially but also the population leading to loss of school and shop. SRUC did a study demonstrating this.
The farms may have relied on subsidy but it was spent locally. Forestry gets huge subsidies but the owners are increasingly remote or not even in UK any more.
The contractors often live in a caravan for 3 months then return home once finished and 2 men can clear huge areas with machinery.
However, with better internet connections and home working we are seeing people in higher paid jobs moving here so maybe all is not lost

 

[egbert]

You would think that all those poor hill farms made little difference but as stated above when they were lost there was a huge impact on fragile rural areas, not just financially but also the population leading to loss of school and shop. SRUC did a study demonstrating this.
The farms may have relied on subsidy but it was spent locally. Forestry gets huge subsidies but the owners are increasingly remote or not even in UK any more.
The contractors often live in a caravan for 3 months then return home once finished and 2 men can clear huge areas with machinery.
However, with better internet connections and home working we are seeing people in higher paid jobs moving here so maybe all is not lost

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.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

You would think that all those poor hill farms made little difference but as stated above when they were lost there was a huge impact on fragile rural areas, not just financially but also the population leading to loss of school and shop. SRUC did a study demonstrating this.
The farms may have relied on subsidy but it was spent locally. Forestry gets huge subsidies but the owners are increasingly remote or not even in UK any more.
The contractors often live in a caravan for 3 months then return home once finished and 2 men can clear huge areas with machinery.
However, with better internet connections and home working we are seeing people in higher paid jobs moving here so maybe all is not lost

I have shared a study/report on here, from Norway, showing that when sheep are removed from the mountains, Birch forests I think it was take over, this causes an increase in global warming, due to the loss of the albedo effect.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

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.

I think we as a country lack a joined up forward thinking plan for land use and food production. Instead we have rich individuals/companies buying land either to offset inheritance tax/act as a playground/offset carbon emissions while others regard the countryside as a chocolate box/theme park leaving the poor people who live and work there in a pretty difficult place.

 

[Bogweevil]

I have shared a study/report on here, from Norway, showing that when sheep are removed from the mountains, Birch forests I think it was take over, this causes an increase in global warming, due to the loss of the albedo effect.

Quick, tell those Norwegians, they seem to be busily re-wilding https://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk...showing-whats-possible-in-scotland-and-beyond

 

[Nithsdale]

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).

Those hills are lying empty because they are estate owned (or private absent land owners who are only interested in the sporting potential) - the tenants have been removed (tenancies terminated unlawfully in many instances, others the tenants have been 'bought out' or the tenant retired with no opportunity given for a new tenant to offer tender on the farm)... the owner receives the sub on the land and has no obligation/responsibilities of 'keeping' a tenant.

There are plenty willing to still farm these hills - if given a chance. But that chance is not being given. It is a real problem.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Those hills are lying empty because they are estate owned (or private absent land owners who are only interested in the sporting potential) - the tenants have been removed (tenancies terminated unlawfully in many instances, others the tenants have been 'bought out' or the tenant retired with no opportunity given for a new tenant to offer tender on the farm)... the owner receives the sub on the land and has no obligation/responsibilities of 'keeping' a tenant.

There are plenty willing to still farm these hills - if given a chance. But that chance is not being given. It is a real problem.

I heard a programme on radio 4, about the fires in the Welsh valleys in the summer, and they opinioned that was due to the population being disenfranchised from the land, therefore felt no ownership or kinship with the moors surrounding their houses, therefore were happy to set them on fire.

 

[egbert]

Those hills are lying empty because they are estate owned (or private absent land owners who are only interested in the sporting potential) - the tenants have been removed (tenancies terminated unlawfully in many instances, others the tenants have been 'bought out' or the tenant retired with no opportunity given for a new tenant to offer tender on the farm)... the owner receives the sub on the land and has no obligation/responsibilities of 'keeping' a tenant.

There are plenty willing to still farm these hills - if given a chance. But that chance is not being given. It is a real problem.

Hmm.
I'm sure that's true in some places.
But equally, I know hill in a number of locales across the UK that's ungrazed due to simple lack of profitability , and I'm pretty sure there's a lot more.

Then, up your way, there's the not unreasonable fear of what Wee Jimmy Krankie might do one day hindering owners from letting
(I'm sure someone will be along to tell me that's all wrong)
Down here, we've management agreements foisted on us, with threats of overgrazing punishments if we don't comply. The subsequent stocking regimes are then so insanely low that huge areas have no stock at all, and steadily build fuel for monster fires.
In the N of England esp, utilities and charities are doing whatever they can to remove our brethren from the hill.

It's complicated.

 

[Nithsdale]

.....
In the N of England esp, utilities and charities are doing whatever they can to remove our brethren from the hill.

It's complicated.

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...

 

[BenAdamsAgri]

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

In reality its nowhere near £10k

 

[Bury the Trash]

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...

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.