Sycamore tree and Sycamore wood

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

When we are talking here about the Sycamore we are talking about Acer pseudoplantanus, the “European” Sycamore and not the American one, which is Platanus occidentalis.

Sycamore (Acer pseudoplantanus) (in the USA called Sycamore maple) is a very underrated and undervalued tree and wood in Britain where it is continuously referred to as a non-native species and some call for its eradication.

While it is true that in the UK, Sycamore frequently suffers from sooty bark disease (further citation) to all intents and purposes, however, is – fingers tightly crossed it remains that way – otherwise very resilient. Sooty bark is, however, fatal for the tree once it has been affected. Having said that, however, it would appear that Britain has just managed, probably, to import a plant disease, Xylella fastidiosa, from the European Union that, unfortunately, does attack Sycamore, along with Oak and Bird Cherry.

In my opinion Sycamore if one of the best woods for treen, and that not only because of its high antibacterial and antiviral properties, though it may be rather plain and lack interesting grain feature rater, in comparison to other hardwoods.

On the European mainland, especially in Germany, where it is called “Mountain Maple”, Sycamore is regarded as a noble timer tree and highly valued.

With Ash Dieback (ADB) making itself rather felt in woodlands across Britain UK forestry bodies are looking abroad for foreign replacement completely disregarding the Sycamore and, still more often than not, rejecting any suggestion of looking at that tree, which does so well, bar for sooty bark, in the UK where it tends to grow like a weed, with the comment that it is not a native tree. But Southern Beech, and other suggested replacements, also from the USA, obviously are. I rest my case here, as it is getting rather heavy (the case that is).

Personally, but then this is me, and I love Sycamore, I cannot see why the Forestry Commission and the Royal Forestry Society, and others, are looking at American maples, for instance, as a possible replacement for Ash, when we already have a, more or less, perfect specimen of the maple family in our midst that also likes living and multiplying here. Anyone who has seen how that tree multiplies will know what I mean.

German forestry sources refer, as said earlier, to Acer pseudoplantanus as a noble timer tree, or even as Edelholz, meaning precious wood, and there, apparently, it tends to only grow in mountainous regions and not so well in the lower areas. Maybe they need some British Sycamore seed... just jesting. So why the permanent rejection of Sycamore in Britain as a “non-native” tree, especially considering that it once, before the last ice age, apparently, was native here but did not return on its own steam.

© 2018

Industrial agriculture and forestry

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

We are dealing with Nature as if she were a factory floor and we even call agriculture and forestry nowadays industries.

Nature is not a factory floor, however, but a living intricate organism that cannot be (just) exploited, whether it is in the way that we farm today or the way that we deal with our woods and forests.

We are trying to get more and more out of our farmland and our woods and forests without considering that it just does not work that way. Oh, if the soil is depleted of nutrients we can just chuck some chemicals at it to feed the plants while at the same time further eroding the soil and the organism that live within it and that are needed for proper soil structure and soil health.

We use machinery that compacts the soil and destroys the organism that live there and that make the soil the life-sustaining stuff that it is. In forestry the huge harvesters, which are claimed to be so much more efficient than using loggers and tractors or better still horses to move the logs, with their weight and wheels destroy everything in their wake but then it is the fact that branches have not been left laying on the floor “for the wildlife”. So, lets create “habitat piles”, that will solve the problem, while we continue with bad practice.

But, we are told, it must be done this way so as to be expedient and profitable. Profit, in the world today, comes before anything and everything and that we are degrading and destroying the biosphere – let's get away from the term environment, for environment just, in actual fact means surroundings – to such an extent that it has difficulties supporting life.

Ever bigger and heavier machines are needed, we are told, for farming and forestry to be efficient and productive, which at the same time destroy the very soil that the entire operation depends upon. Then it is a call of chemical industry to the rescue in the form of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, etc., in the hope that that might mitigate some of the infertility of the soil and so on. Fighting fire with fire might work with a forest fire to some extent but not in this case.

If we don't nurture Nature Nature will not nurture us. Simple as that. Time to understand that Nature is a living breathing organism and not some factory floor with production lines. But that is how we have come to behave in the last century or so and it is just not a way that we can go on. In fact, we should never, ever, have started down that road and we must make a one-hundred-and-eighty degree turn about and we must do that now, immediately, before it is too late.

We are reaching the point where the Earth, where Nature, will have to end the burden that we have placed upon Her, if we do not lift the burden ourselves. It is those practices of ours of treating Nature like a factory floor that have placed an enormous burden upon Her and unless we lift this burden She will change things Herself, no doubt. Nature has Her ways of keeping a balance and that way might very well go against us.

We need Nature but Nature does not need us. This is something that we did well to remember and began now, this very moment, to make and demand the changes that are required. Nature is not a factory nor is it a store of resources to be plundered for profit.

© 2017

Modern Farming vs Natural Farming

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The more we pour the big machines, the fuel, the pesticides, the herbicides, the fertilizer and chemicals into farming, the more we knock out the mechanism that made it all work in the first place. ~ David R. Brower

And this goes for farming as much as for forestry, by the way, as far as the use of big machines is concerned.

The big farm machines are expensive to produce, expensive by way of raw materials and to the Planet, and are expensive to buy, run and maintain. They use vast amounts of diesel and pollute the atmosphere no end. And as far as biodiesel is concerned, which was heralded as the great savior it would appear that we have jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

Modern farming with its big machines and its heavy reliance on and input of oil-derived fertilizers and other chemicals simply is not sustainable as it destroys the very soil and air and water that we all, including plants and animals, depend upon.

About two years ago the United Nations have called for an end to industrialized farming and have stated that we could feed all the world from small organic farms and still no one is believing it nor do they want to heed this message. Not only can we do so, we must as the current way cannot continue any longer.

Glysophate is killing our earthworm population (see), insecticides our bees, fracking and other activities are poisoning the water, and everything else is polluting the atmosphere, soil, etc.

The use of machinery, and chemicals, in forestry is not much better and the large “harvesters” that are used nowadays seem to be one of the, if not indeed the, reason that today's forests and woodlands do have a problem with wildlife, including and especially invertebrates and fungi.

When it was working in forestry and woodland management as a youngster – from about the age of seven – there was a clean forest floor policy and still the wildlife in all its forms lived and thrived. The only reason why this has changed today must have something to do with the way we work rather than anything else and I believe that the heavy machines are to blame and, no doubt, the same is also true in farming.

A tractor of around ten tons in weight has a much greater impact – even if it has the large wheels and tires said to distribute the weight – than the small tractors of only a couple tons that we had not all that long ago or the heavy horse and thus the damage to the soil, by way of compacting, etc., is immense. It is no wonder, aside from the use of the chemicals that are killing things, that our farmland soil is having problems. It can't breathe.

And the same for the forests and woodlands. The ground is being compacted and with it soil life is being destroyed. The problem with the habitat piles that are now being scattered all about is – while they help the wildlife – that they harbor forest diseases and also are a fire hazard. And, no, they do not complete decay within a year or so. I have only recently gotten rid off such materials (logs) of even pine and spruce, that have been laying on the woodland floor for more than five years with very little decay.

We are trying to rectify the damage that we continuously do to farm and forest soil and ecosystem by this or that – artificial – remedy instead of changing our practices back to those that were used when the land was fertile, both on farms and in the forest. It is like putting a band aid on a cut only then to make another cut to which we apply yet another band aid.

© 2015

Parliamentarians agree to protect future of forests

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

• New All Party Parliamentary Group formed
• Call for more planting of trees in UK
• MPs urge better public understanding of role of managed forests

MPs and Lords have established a new group to safeguard and boost the future of the country’s forests and the wood processing sector. The new All Party Parliamentary Group on Forestry (APPGF) has been created to highlight the urgent need for more investment in the forestry and wood-processing sector.

The group will focus on the need for increased levels of sustainable forestry, helping to drive UK support for the wider forestry and wood-processing sector.

At the House of Commons launch event, Stuart Goodall, Chief Executive of group organizers, Confor, set out how forestry and wood processing supports 2.5% of the UK economy and three-quarters of a million jobs.

Confor – a non-government organization that promotes sustainable forestry and wood production – has urged MPs to call on the government to commit to investing in the sector to enable the planting of more trees to sustain long-term growth and avoid an expected drop off in the availability after 2030.

MPs at the APPGF launch event also discussed how the benefits of planting more trees go above and beyond economic factors. More British planting, MPs claimed, would bring environmental and biodiversity benefits to the UK.

As a result, MPs called for better public education on the role managed forests play and the need to encourage more people to visit the nation’s forests.

Chris Davies, Conservative MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, newly elected Chair of the APPGF, said: “Forestry needs to be placed right at the forefront of the agricultural sector and appreciated much more by the wider community.

“A successful forestry and wood processing sector is a positive not only for the economy, but also for the environment, recreation and health too. There is a long way to go to get this issue higher up the political agenda, but with cross party, cross industry engagement I believe we can give our forestry and wood sectors the attention they deserve.”

In addition to electing Mr Davies as Chair of the APPGF, MPs elected three vice chairs: Labour peer, Lord Clark of Windermere, Conservative Lord Boswell of Aynho and Anne-Marie Trevelyan Conservative MP for Berwick-upon-Tweed.

With proper investment and commitment from the government the forestry sector could deliver an additional 7000 jobs in deprived rural areas and increased planting could mean that by 2050, forestry alone could decrease 10% of the UK’s annual greenhouse gases emissions.

Confor have also called for increased domestic production of timber to help address problems of illegal timber highlighted in a recent Early Day Motion signed by almost 40 MPs.

Stuart Goodall from Confor welcomed the formation of the Group: “The need for increased levels of sustainable forestry and support for the wider forestry and wood processing sector has never been more important. The sector needs a secure long-term supply of timber, and woodlands need to be managed responsibly to protect them from climate change and pests/diseases.

“We welcome MPs calling for better public education and will work with other organizations to make this happen. We also need to ensure that the planned devolution of responsibility for forests doesn’t damage our sector.”

Confor’s 2014 ‘Delivering Green Growth Report’ sets out three key asks for the government to consider backing which are: to plant more productive forests, stimulate markets for timber and deploy ‘wood first’ policies in all public building projects, and encourage active forest management to deliver the widest possible range of benefits.

The only – and this is a large only – problem that I am seeing here with all of this is that this is all, primarily, aimed at the forest industry, that is to say large operations, whether by the Forestry Commission, Tilhill Forestry, or other private forestry companies and forest owners and that it will be aimed, once again, predominately, at the single species stands of conifers that will produce a quick ROI rather than hardwoods and especially coppicing. Or am I just too pessimistic and critical?

While we most certainly need more trees in Britain, and also a thriving forestry sector, in order to become more self-sufficient in wood in this country, the operational practices of the forest industry, as they are at present, with more often than not the use of heavy machinery, such as timber harvesters, are doing more harm than good.

We must return to a more gentler forestry practice that has less destructive impact on the forest and the forest floor especially. It is my belief that the use of those machines and other heavy extraction gear is the reason that the forest floor flora and fauna is in such a bad state that it is today. When ten or twenty tonne machines compact the soil for hours and days on end what can we expect but destruction and anyone who has seen the aftermath of those machines in action must, I am sure, come to the same conclusion.

In days not all that long ago the extraction of timber from the felling locations was either done by horse or much lighter tractors, or even from the forestry roads by tractor-mounted winch and thus the impact on the forest floor in the stands was much less severe than it is today. The use of horses, actually, benefited the forest in that the hooves of the horses in action would push acorns intoo the ground to just about the right depth for germination. Maybe we should rethink how we do thing. In addition to that it would also create additional employment in the forestry and woodland management sector as some more loggers and other people would be required.

From a sustainability aspect one must also question the use of those heavy machines and that alone as regards to the fuel consumption of them when in full operation. The problem with this, in the capitalist system, is that it would cut somewhat into the profits of the companies and their shareholders and that is more important to them, regardless of what is being said publicly, that the true sustainability of their operations and the health of the forests.

© 2015

Resilient Woodlands Campaign

A much-needed campaign to raise awareness about the importance of resilience in our woodlands is shortly to get underway.

Work behind the scenes for more than one year has seen organisations and experts from across the forestry and tree sector coming together to work on a range of activities. The degree and method of collaboration has been unprecedented. Sylva’s team have been centrally involved in helping the process advance and in fostering collaboration. Our CEO has acted as editor-in-chief for the drafting of an Accord (see below) and thanks to funding from Forestry Commission England and the Woodland Trust, we are repeating the British Woodlands Survey, this time on the theme of Resilience.

The first outcomes will be launched publicly at the CLA Game Fair on July 31st. The main outcomes of theResilient Woodlands Campaign will be:

1. An Accord detailing common agreement among a very wide partnership of organisations that environmental change is impacting our woodlands, and that fundamental changes in actions are necessary.

2. A series of Adaptation in Action statements from a large number of organisations outlining their specific stance, activities and intended outcomes.

3. A national survey on Resilience, under the British Woodland Survey series to launch 31st July. We encourage all woodland owners, agents, tree nursery businesses and tree professionals to take part. Read more about the British Woodlands Survey 2015

4. Conference on Resilience organised jointly by the Woodland Trust and Royal Forestry Society on October 1st.
   Read more

The British Woodlands Survey will be national in perspective. Although the brand name of the survey series run by the Sylva Foundation uses the term ‘British’, we hope to attract responses from across the United Kingdom.

Some elements of the campaign have an English focus due to funding bodies involved and policy fit. Outcomes of the campaign will feed directly into the National Adaptation Programme, overseen by Defra and supported by Climate Ready (Environment Agency).

This press release is presented without editing for your information only.

Full Disclosure Statement: The GREEN (LIVING) REVIEW received no compensation for any component of this article.

Weed your woods

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

It may sound silly at first, but, if you want to make your woodland (more) productive, just treat it like a big vegetable garden. You will grow the best crop if you cut the weed trees, thin the thick spots, and harvest the crop trees before they get too "ripe" to use.

But, let's start where we always should start, namely at the beginning.

A wood, even a forest, is to the forester the same as a field is to the farmer or a garden to the gardener and all of them need management if they are to thrive. The only difference between a gardener or farmer and a forester is that the latter often does not, except in coppice management, ever sees the harvest. He harvests often what others, long before him, have planted, and he manages and plants for the future, for harvests that are carried out by others, often after he is long gone.

Alas all too often there are people about who believe that Mother Nature does a better job than we could ever do and there are time when that is true. If the woodland, however, is to be of use to us and to wildlife and be a thriving ecosystem then management by man is required and this even more so if the woods have been managed before by the hand of man for our use, and this even more so if the produce of such woods are also to benefit us.

Even when managing a coppice woodland weeding certain trees out and doing selective cutting here and there is required and in stands where large trees are to be the result then thinning is a must and it must be repeated every couple of years and, if permitted, over time those cut trees may actually turn into coppice stools and a so-called coppice with standards will result and a good result that is too.

Your goals will greatly affect your management decisions and your management decisions will greatly affect the outcome and the produce. Of course, the existing conditions of your woodland may have an equally great effect on your decisions and the outcome.

A mature stand of timber may dictate a heavy cut to stop further decline while a mixed-age or middle-aged stand of timber is a likely candidate for a selective cut. Any young stands can be like a recently sown bed of carrots, nothing will prosper without a little thinning. When it comes to a woodland of mixed-age or middle-age stands of timber then, if it is hardwood, or deciduous woods, which, hopefully it is, of native trees then one of the best options is to create a coppice with standards and if it is a coppice woodland that was previously managed as such then you may find many an overstood coppice stool that needs immediate attention.

Once you've decided your motives, you need to find out just how saleable your timber is. Become “wood-wise” and learn to recognize the potential in a tree or a stand of coppice. Also the species that you have growing and which are due for cutting and then research the market. The original task of the professional forester was that of recognizing what every tree or part of a tree could become by way of product and use and this “eye” you, as a woodsman, will also have to develop. Once you know all that research your potential market and not, necessarily, people such as sawmills and the like but look at what you, actually, could make out of the wood yourself that could be sold to end-users rather than processors.

Selling to a sawmill or any processor will greatly reduce your income from your woods. On the other hand if you go into production of wooden goods yourself you will have to have the time for doing so, the tools and then a way of marketing them to the end-users. It is all a case of horses for courses. A sawmill or other processor may give you x for the whole tree but processed by yourself into a variety of products, and the same is true for coppice stems, will give you x4 it is obvious that you can make more, in financial terms, from processing most of the wood yourself. But, as said, it requires time, effort, and tools to do so.

When it comes to the felling, especially of larger trees, and you have not used a chainsaw before and/or felled large trees then please do not do it without any training even if it is your land and in all theory you can use a chainsaw there to your heart's content. Chainsaw take no prisoners and are extremely dangerous, as are trees falling. We are talking several tons in weight coming crashing down at a rate of knots. So, I say it again, learn felling of trees or get an experienced lumberjack to do the work for you. Do not take any chances.

Now, what are the weeds and what are the crops?

Well, a crop tree is any reasonably mature tree worth harvesting, or one that has the potential to grow into such a tree. Weed trees may just be species of low value, or may be damaged by rot, fire, lightning, wind, insects, etc. They could also be trees excessively lean or that are rather crooked. Removing those, and those that otherwise interfere with the growth of the other trees, is called thinning, and is much like thinning out a bed of carrots.

In any woodland for trees to develop to the full potential it is important that each of them has enough space to grow and develop. It is a little different in a pure coppice as compared with coppice with standards and a lot different in a stand of timber where all are meant to be single stems growing to maturity.

Thinning (weeding) is a valuable exercise even in a pure coppice where I have begun to referring to it as selective coppicing for here we can do it in two ways. We can either remove stems that are already harvestable for a variety of products and leave other, smaller ones, to grow to a decent size or removing those small stems that are and never will be of any use but which interfere with the growth of those we want to harvest in a year or four, those that are spindly, deformed, or otherwise of no use.

Our main aim, with hardwood trees, is to create, when working to rejuvenate a woodland, a sustainable coppice woodland, either as a pure coppice or a a coppice with standards, and the former is easier to maintain than the latter, in all honesty.

But the latter will make for the production of timber in size that cannot be achieved in a pure coppice and thus often that is the one to go for.

In that case weeding, aka thinning, will be required on a regular basis especially also as you will want to bring on new growth, natural regeneration, and encourage those young trees to grow to mature standards to eventually replace those that you will cut in time.

In order to help them grow, however, the area around them in the woods will need not just thinning but also in this case really weeding. But unlike in the garden you don't have to remove dandelion and such like but brambles and bracken and such vegetation that might encroach and smother the saplings or otherwise impede their growth. Protection from grazers too may be required and some wire-mesh or the chicken-wire variety held by some stakes will, more often than not, suffice. And then there is more weeding and thinning.

© 2015

For more on coppicing and why, etc. see “Managing our Woods”, a small book that explains the whys and wherefores of managing our woods in this way and calls for us to return to that way.

The need for a return to coppice management

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The high timber forest consisting of so-called standards, with no small growth trees and coppice beneath, has its place and especially in areas where coppicable deciduous trees do not and cannot grow, and also for some end uses. In general, however, we must return to coppice management in most if not indeed all of our woodlands wherever it is possible in order to bring homegrown wood back into the economy and especially in order to rebuild local woodland industries.

For far too long the old woodland management practice of coppicing has fallen into disuse in favor of growing pine, spruce and fir – relatively quick-growing conifers and others such as larch, as standards (there is no other way as conifers simply do not coppice) to supply lumber, often for low-quality use, rather than hardwoods from full coppice woods and from coppice with standards, the latter which can be used to produce much higher quality products.

A great many of the products that once were made from coppiced wood nowadays are made from plastic or machined from wood in countries far away, or from bamboo, and carried around the globe at a high cost, especially to the environment, that is to say the Planet.

A return to coppicing our woods and using the timber harvested could bring a return of home-grown timber products made to high standards by local craftspeople and though those products would be more expensive than the current imports and those made from plastic they would be hundreds of times more sustainable.

At the same time the woods and the wildlife will benefit and so will the local economy also. The woods and the wildlife both benefit under coppice management because biodiversity is increased once the canopy is opened up every couple of years when sections of the woods are harvested and also because, in comparison to pine, spruce and fir, in broadleaf copses there is a complete set of layers to the woods. In the dark coniferous forests of standards those are generally non-existent due to lack of light penetrating the forest floor.

Coppice woods, while also dark in summer when growing and in leaf, this scenery changes, however, every seven to fourteen years when the stems are harvested. The canopy then is open for a couple of years and the everything changes on the woodland floor and coppice woods, especially coppice with standards, exhibit the entire range of the levels of the forest, benefiting the biodiversity of the woods and representing the healthy balance of a wood.

Die Notwendigkeit zur Rueckkehr zur Niederwaldwirtsschaft

Hochwald hat seinen Platz und ganz bestimmt dort wo Niederwald aus den richtigen Laubbaeumen nicht funktioniert. Aber im Grossen und Ganzen muessen wird zurueckkehren zur Niederwaldwirtschaft in der Grosszahl wenn nicht sorgar allen unsere Waelder (wo immer moeglich) um selbstgezogenes einheimisches Holz wieder zuerueck zu bringen in die Volkswirtschaft und besonders auch um die heimischen Waldindustrie wieder aufzubauen.

Fuer viel zu lange ist die Niederwaldwirtschaft bereits das Steifkind in der Waldwirtschaft und dem Anbau von schnell wachsenden Nadelhoelzern wurde Vorrang gegeben als Hochwald um Holz, oft fuer niderwertige Verwendungszwecke, zu produzieren, an Stelle von Hartholz aus dem Niederwald und dem Mittelwald.

Viele der Produkte die frueher hergestellt wurden aus dem Holz aus dem Holz das aus dem Niederwald und dem Mittelwald kam, oft in Heimarbeit und kleinen Werkstaetten, sind duch Plastik “ersetzt” worden und durch Holzartikel die von Maschinen hergestellt werden, oft im Ausland, im Fernen Osten, oder aus Bambus, und dann um den Erdball transportiert werden, zu hohen Kosten, besonders fuer die Umwelt und unseren Planeten. Das Holz selbst, fuer diese Produkte, oft stammt auch aus dubioesen Quellen.

Einen erneute Hinwendung zur Niederwaldwirtschaft und die Verwendung des auf diesem Wege produziertem Holzes koennte eine Rueckkehr von einheimisch gewachsenen Holzprodukten von hoher Qualitaet, hergestellt von einheimischen und ortsansaessigen Handwerkern, auf dem Markt sehen.

Waehrend solche Produkte, da handgefertigt, teurer sind als die momentanen Importe und Produkte aus Plastik sind sie aber hunderte Male mehr nachhaltig und halten auch laenger.

Zur gleichen Zeit wird sich eine solche Rueckkehr zur Nieder- und Mittlewaldwirtschaft positiv auf unsere Waelder und auf die Pflanzen- und Tierwelt auswirken wie auch auf die heimische Wirtschaft. Waelder und Flora und Fauna profitieren von kirrekter Niederwaldwirtschaft da die biologische Vielfalt sich erhoeht sobald das Blaetterdach des Waldes alle paar Jahre gelichtet wird wenn Holz in bestimmten Abteilungen des Waldes geerntet wird. Und auch weil in Gegensatz zum Hochwald, besonders dem Nadelwald, in Laubwald unter Niederwaldwirtschaft all Schichten des Waldes vorhanden sind, und besonders so im Mittelwald. In den dunklen Nadelwaeldern sind diese jedoch generell nicht vorhanden da wenig Licht auf den Waldboden durchdringt.

Waehrend Nieder- und Mittelwald auch dunkel sein koennen im Sommer wenn die Baeume wachsen unbd im Laub stehen, aendert sich dieses Bild jedoch alle sieben bis vierzehn Jahre wenn naemlich die Staemme geerntet werden. Dann ist das Blaetterdach fuer mehrere Jahre offen und auf dem Waldboden erwacht das Leben.

Im korrekt bewirtschafteten Nieder- und besonders im Mittelwald finden wir das gesammte Spektrum der Schichten des Waldes wieder was wiederum der Biodervisitaet grosse Dienste leistet und das gesunde Gleichgewicht des Waldes darstellt.

Erlaerung:

Mittelwald ist in Englisch “coppice with standards”, d.h es ist Niederwald in dem man bestimmte Baeume zur Hochwaldgroesse empor wachsen laesst.

© 2015

Why coppice?

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Were it not for the question mark this could be mistaken for the name of a woodland but while it is not about woodlands and their management it is.

Managing our woods by coppicing is almost – I did say almost – as old as the hills. It has probably come about when humans discovered that some – in fact many – species of trees regrow when cut and that rather vigorously and almost in perpetuity.

In the British Isles, and probably also in other parts of Europe, our woods have been managed in this way since more or less neolithic times, and we have managed them well and they thrived under this care.

Coppicing continued from the early times in its growth, and by the mid 13th century, most of our woodlands in the British Isles, and probably elsewhere, were managed as coppice.

Coppicing remained an important rural industry in Britain until its decline started in the 1850s, when a decrease in the demand for traditional products came about.

This decline increased dramatically after the First World War when major industry started to manufacture products that were once supplied from the woods by coppice workers and went further and deeper into decline after about the Second World War and especially with the advent of (cheap) plastic goods for the kitchen, etc. Products made from coppiced wood just could not compete any longer on price.

Then emerged the false idea (among environmentalists especially) that cutting any tree was bad and the demand misguided quarters to let the wild woods be wild woods.

This has allowed our woods to fall into a serious state of disrepair to the point of total destruction almost. The problem is that if a coppice stool, a tree that once has been coppiced, is not continued to be managed in this way, will eventually, as the trunks emanating from a single rootstock, the stool, break this root, this stool, apart because their weight, as they become “top heavy”. This will destroy such a coppice stool permanently and others, over a short time, in the same plot, are going to follow, which means the end of that particular woodland.

Woods (and forests) do not manage themselves, especially not those that have been coppiced before, despite what some have been led to believe, and if all, the woods, wildlife and we are to have a benefit and use of and from those woods and its products then we have to manage them and manage them well.

Coppicing is the finest management system for our woods and one – probably the only one – under which they thrive and here not just the trees but the entire ecosystem.

The cutting of the trees in rotation of so many years – between about seven to fourteen, depending on what the wood is to be used for – opens up the canopy, in some areas at least as never the whole area is cut, allowing light to reach the woodland floor. This in turn allows seeds that have lay dormant to germinate and emerge and the area will soon we covered in wild flowers of all kinds and the air be resounding to the sound of bees and butterflies will be everywhere. Birds or prey will be able to hunt and soon also tree seeds that have been covering the floor will germinate an new life will start, and not only from the coppice stools who also will begin shooting again. Don't worry, no flak jacket required.

The wood that has been harvested during the cutting will be put to use to benefit humans in many ways, from charcoal and beanpoles to other coppice crafts, including treen ware, such as spoons, spatulas, baskets, and much more.

Most of the wood that our ancestors used, bar the huge beams for building houses and ships, came from woods that were coppiced and very little wood was ever wasted. It heated their homes, provided their furniture, their eating utensils, including bowls and trenchers, tool handles and in some cases the tools themselves, such as pitchforks. The latter were often made all from wood and in a variety of ways, but some were just simply wooden poles that had a natural fork of two or three (sometimes more) tines.

Even in Britain wooden bowls and spoons, even for eating, were still in daily use in the countryside well into the 20th century but after World War One things began to change and wood was less and less used in that kind of daily life and after the Second World War it ceased virtually all together. In some parts of Europe the use of wood for everyday objects continued much longer and in some cases continues to this day and the coppice worker's products are still in demand, such as in some areas of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria.

Russian soldiers and partisans carried personal eating spoons from wood still during the Great Patriotic War but then again, someone might say, it was a country that was still rather backwards. Yes, maybe, but it still beat the Nazi war-machine.

The British and European coppice woodlands did and still could produce most of the wood needs of our countries, with the exception of really wide boards, which are not possible to achieve from standard rotation coppice, even if a tree is left for twelve to fourteen years to grow before being cut. Almost anything else, however, can be made from this wood; after all it used to be done before.

For more on coppicing and why, etc. see “Managing our Woods”, a small book that explains the whys and wherefores of managing our woods in this way and calls for us to return to that way.

© 2015

Encouraging planting trees will sequester carbon and conserve habitat

by Michael smith (Veshengro)

Oh my G-d! They have needed a university study again to “discover” something that every proper forester has known for ever and a day. They, however, needed a study for it again. Talking about stating the obvious.

Rewarding landowners for converting farmland into forest will be key to sequestering carbon and providing wildlife habitat, according to a new study by Oregon State University and collaborators.

Current land-use trends in the United States will significantly increase urban land development by mid-century, along with a greater than 10 percent reduction in habitat of nearly 50 at-risk species, including amphibians, large predators and birds, said David Lewis, co-author of the study and an environmental economist in OSU's College of Agricultural Sciences.

"One of the great challenges of our time is providing food, timber and housing, while also preserving the environment," said Lewis. "Our simulations show our growing appetite for resources could have cascading effects on wildlife and other vital services provided by nature."

"Policymakers have tools to increase tree cover and limit urban sprawl, such as targeted taxes, incentives and zoning," he added.

Paying landowners $100 an acre per year to convert land into forest would increase forestland by an estimated 14 percent and carbon storage by 8 percent by mid-century, the researchers say. Timber production would increase by nearly 20 percent and some key wildlife species would gain at least 10 percent more habitat, they added.

Yet this subsidy program would also shrink food production by 10 percent and comes with an annual $7.5 billion price tag, said Lewis.

Another policy option — charging landowners $100 per acre of land that is deforested for urban development, cropland or pasture — would generate $1.8 billion a year in revenue. More than 30 percent of vital species would gain habitat. Yet carbon storage and food production would shrink slightly, according to the study.

What is worrying in our age is that we seem to need a scientific study, conducted by some researchers, to “discover” the things that we have, actually, known for a long time already; in some cases for ever and a day.

Foresters through the ages have known the importance of trees and their habitat for the Planet, even though they may not have expressed it, or been able to express this, in a scientific way. But is that really necessary. We need more trees, period! It is that simple. And we need them not just for carbon capture (carbon sequestration) but also for raw materials. After all wood is made by trees and not in some factory.

© 2015

For more on woodland management, especially coppicing and why, etc. see “Managing our Woods”, a small book that explains the whys and wherefores of managing our woods in this way and calls for us to return to that way.

Original Löwe 14.104 compact bypass pruners – Product Review

Review by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Original Löwe is best known for its anvil pruning shears and, though many many not know it, the parent to the Rolcut pruning shears that once were made and sold in Britain.

The bypass pruner Löwe 14.104 convinces with its compact design and good balance. A balance, in fact, that is very positive indeed and the cutting head and handle, at the right place, will balance like a scale.

The Löwe 14.104 also features dual shock absorber in order to minimize cutting impact, the slim and the pointed design offers as well in tight locations access and the possibility for a clean cut.

The blade also has a built-in wire cutter that completes the picture of this lightweight model. This wire cutter is intended for use with thin tying wire and obviously not meant to cut fencing wire or such. Having such a cutter available at the bottom of the blade of a pair of secateurs is important for those who professionally work with them, especially those in vineyards.

These pruners are 19mm (7.5 inches) in length and the maximum cutting diameter is 22mm (5/8 inch) and such a maximum diameter, ideally, should not be exceeded. Its weight is 180grams (6.35 ounces).

Spare parts are available for this, as for all other, Original Löwe pruners and shears.

The price in the UK should be around the £20 mark making it cheaper than any of the competition in the same quality range.

© 2015

Grey squirrels – the biggest risk to our woodland heritage say woodland owners and managers

The Royal Forestry Society (RFS) is calling on the Government and Forestry Commission England to put control of grey squirrels on a similar level of importance to that of tree diseases. It is pressing for more research, effective support for woodland owners and managers, and for a programme to increase public awareness of the threat to the health of our broadleaved woods caused by grey squirrels.

Grey squirrel damage to the bark of pendunculate oak

The call by the RFS – the longest-established membership organisation for woodland owners and managers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – follows its online survey which asked woodland owners and managers to rate the danger of grey squirrels to woodlands, share their experiences of controlling grey squirrels and suggest what support they need.

The survey was completed by 750 people; 60% of survey participants were woodland owners and 40% managers, consultants or agents who clearly said: Grey squirrels represent the greatest threat to broadleaf woodlands, marginally ahead of tree diseases and well ahead of deer.

Read more: http://rfs.org.uk/news/2014/1/grey-squirrels-the-biggest-risk-to-our-woodland-heritage-say-woodland-owners-and-managers/

Need for more trees confirmed by Forest Facts Summary as businesses urged to go green

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Recent statistics that have been released by the Woodland Trust reveal just how quickly Britain’s natural resources are depleting. Produced by the Forestry Commission, the findings, published on 25th September 2014, revealed that the UK is one of Europe’s least wooded countries with only 13% forest cover. The damning statistics urge businesses to choose sustainable choices and ‘go green’ to promote accessible eco-friendly choices .

Key points garnered from the latest report highlight that only 44% of England’s woodland is sustainably managed meaning that over half of England’s forests are at risk from being continuously depleted.

Those latest statistics from the Woodland Trust are a mixed bag. There are some positive developments but we have a long way to go. At present, we are not protecting enough of our forests and woodland in this country. As the least densely covered country in Europe, it is essential that we develop sustainable, environmentally-conscious choices when selecting the products we consume and purchase in day to day life.

Worryingly, not enough businesses are going green, though we hope that these recent statistics will motivate companies to reconsider their professional values and work in conjunction with the environment, rather than against it.

If we want trees to remain a sustainable resource, then we must care for them. We are at a point of no return where we can no longer continue to ravage our natural landscape as we have been. We must rebuild Britain’s forests and woodlands and manage them properly.

Too often, however, woodland management, including coppicing, is seen by people in some quarters as destruction of our woods and forests. This is not the case, though. Non-management, on the other hand, will lead to the total destruction of many of our woods.

If we want our woodlands and forests in Britain (and elsewhere) to continue to thrive then proper sustainable management of the old style, the style or styles that have been practiced for millenia, must be brought back into practice.

Often, when the talk is about protecting our woodlands and forests what is meant by many proponents is to stop all management and all activities and “return the wood” to Nature. And while this sounds very great the truth is that that is the death penalty for many of those woods and forests that have been managed. Without management they will become a wilderness that will benefit no one, not even wildlife.

We must be careful that protecting our forests and woodland in this country does not become a mantra for not doing anything and leaving those forests and woodlands to their own devices. Firstly we would not have any homegrown timber and secondly it would lead, in fact, to the destruction of the very forests and woodlands we mean to “protect”.

© 2014

Landowners urged to restore ancient woodland

The UK’s leading woodland conservation charity has embarked upon a new scheme aimed at restoring ancient woodland in a number of areas across the UK.

It is now looking for woodland owners to make small changes to how they manage their woodland, and make a big difference to the protection of this irreplaceable habitat.

The Woodland Trust would like to work with private woodland owners to restore areas of ancient woodland affected by the presence of non-native or invasive species, such as plantation conifers or rhododendron respectively. The charity is offering advice and support to help people re-establish habitats affected by such planting so the conditions for species that rely on ancient woodland to survive can be strengthened and conserved for future generations.

Ancient woodland is the richest land habitat for wildlife in the UK that has evolved over many centuries. Its irreplaceable characteristics are identified by specialist species of plants, fungi and insects that are rarely found in younger woods.

Unfortunately much of this has been degraded over the years, and now ancient woodland covers just two per cent of the UK’s landmass. The Woodland Trust hopes to protect and restore existing and damaged ancient woodland by working with landowners across the UK and assisting them to carry out sympathetic restoration programs.

This project has been launched after the Woodland Trust was awarded £1.9m from the Heritage Lottery Fund to restore 52,000 hectares of ancient woodland in ten regions across the UK, ranging from Surrey to Scotland.

Peter and Brenda Tebby are currently restoring areas of their 44 acre woodland complex in Newdigate, Surrey. Peter said: “Knowing we are helping protect and restore a fragment of ancient woodland means a great deal to us. We were complete novices before we started but it hasn’t held us back. We’re lucky to have excellent support from family, friends and neighbours as well professional organisations, and our partnership with a local sustainable energy company provides a useful income from thinnings gathered during our work.”

Dean Kirkland, the Woodland Trust’s Ancient Woodland Restoration Operations Manager, said: “The productive use of land is an essential part of a sustainable future – but so too is the protection of irreplaceable elements that have formed its cultural and biological inheritance. As part of this project, we hope to bring a priceless part of our natural heritage back to life whilst building in resilience for the future.”

Mr Tebby continued: “With the right advice and guidance, a project like this is not just possible, it’s positively enjoyable – especially when you see nature responding and life returning to the areas you’ve worked on.”

Landowners who would like to restore their own woodland, can contact the Woodland Trust by emailing restoration@woodlandtrust.org.uk.

Source: Woodland Trust

AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST ROB PENN TELLS US WHY BRITISH WOODLANDS ARE SO IMPORTANT

Author, journalist and TV presenter Rob Penn tells Grown in Britain what makes British woodlands so important

I am writing this at my new desk. Andy Dix, a local furniture maker, made it from an ash tree felled near my home in the Black Mountains, South Wales. It is both exquisite and functional. It would have been easier to go to IKEA, or buy a new desk on-line but I felt the need to make a point: the pleasure we take from things made from natural materials is an extension of the pleasure we take from nature itself. In a generation, we seem to have forgotten this.

I’m particularly interested in the European ash (Fraxinus excelsior). It is arguably the tree with which man has been most intimate in temperate Europe over the course of human history and it is now under serious threat. Ash has been used for wagons, ploughs and, of fundamental importance from the Iron Age until the middle of the 20^thcentury, the rims of wooden wheels. The unique combination of vigorous strength, durability and elasticity meant ash was used to make tool handles, ladders, hay rakes, hop-poles, hockey sticks, hurley sticks, walking sticks, tennis rackets, looms, croquet mallets, crutches, coracles, cricket stumps, oars, cups, spars, paddles, skis, sledges, cart shafts, the best blocks for pullies, tent pegs, snooker cues, musical instruments, car bodies and even the wings of airplanes. This list is far from comprehensive, and ash is just one of our native tree species. Yet in just half a century, we have almost entirely forgotten how to use ash timber. Mention ash today and the majority of people think only of firewood.

Read more: http://www.growninbritain.org/rob-penn/

Skip Chains Increase Your Chain Saw's Performance

I like skip chains but I quickly learned that if I wanted one in my hometown in Kansas I'd have to special order it.I was visiting my mother in Kansas when she remarked that it would cost about a thousand dollars to remove a dead tree in her yard. I'm not a logger or professional arborist but I've cut down a lot of trees so I took a gander at the one she pointed out. It didn't appear to be too risky (the city's "No Parking" sign was shaking nervously but there were no power lines, mail boxes or buildings nearby), so I told her that if we could come up with a big enough saw I could take it down.

My Stihl was lounging at home 1600 miles away and renting a saw proved impractical (none were available on short notice) so I did a little checking around. I found a new Poulan Pro with a 20 inch bar that would get the job done. It was priced at $199.99 plus tax.

I mixed up a gallon of fuel, filled the oil reservoir with bar oil and began cutting. Just to get used to the saw I first cut down a small tree that had died. The saw had a nice feel and cut cleanly and quickly through the wood. Once I had the tree down I began cutting it into stove length. The core of the tree was rotted out and about the third cut I hit a golf ball size chunk of cement that a squirrel (or one of the neighborhood children?) had dropped in the hollow interior. The chain was nearly ruined so I made a trip to the local farm store to purchase another chain. We looked up the number for the manufacturer's recommended chain but they were out of that one so the clerk recommended one that was a little more aggressive. I looked at it then asked if they had any skip chains. He looked at me somewhat surprised and said they'd have to order it. (I guess they don't sell many of those!) Then he said something that surprised me. He remarked that a skip chain was about the only way to get by with a 20 inch bar on a underpowered saw like mine.

Now, aside from insulting my saw (not a cool thing to do if you want to keep your customers coming back) he was a bit out-of-touch with the advantages of skip chains. He was correct in pointing out that under-powered saws use skip chains to make up for their lack of lack of muscle. However, he was incorrect that they wouldn't improve the performance of larger, more powerful saws.

In case you're wondering what a skip chain is look at the two photos below. In the top photo you'll see a "conventional" chain with a cutting tooth on every, other link. The chain in the second photo is a skip chain with a cutting tooth on every third link. 

Read more: http://www.grit.com/tools/skip-chains-increase-your-chain-saws-performance.aspx

Time to use the wood and plant new trees

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Time to use the wood and plant new trees as young trees... new growth... absorbs more carbon that old growth. This, however, is something, I know, that certain people do not want to hear. The truth is, though, that when a tree gets to a certain age it become a net producer of carbon dioxide and also of methane, as it is already decaying from within and the older it gets the more this happens. This is the very reason why forestry fells trees of certain ages – and the felling times depend on the species of tree – and replants.

Many in the green movement, who have been “brainwashed” into believing that you must never ever cut down a tree, will scream blue murder if one suggests the proper management of woods and forests, which includes felling and restocking. Their argument, time and again, is that woods do not need to be managed and that Nature does it perfectly well.

As I have discussed and explained in my book “Managing our Woods” this is not really the case if the woods are to be of use to both man and the environment, especially when we are talking about (previously) managed woodlands and forests.

When woodlands (and other open spaces) that were once, long ago, managed places, are allowed to run wild, to “return to wilderness”, as it is often referred to, brambles and bracken take over and smother everything below thus giving neither rise to new tree growth nor is such a place any good for wildlife, as it lacks light.

However, before any misunderstandings come up, I am not talking about clear-felling but I am talking about making use of our broadleaved woodlands and forest areas and (re)turning them to and into coppice woods, where there trees are cut in certain time span rotations in order to provide timber and then be allowed to regrow, thus creating a perpetual wood that is alive and thriving and that is good for wildlife and all.

Aside from being good for the woods and the wildlife it is also good for the local economy and the environment.

As far as the local economy is concerned the management of those woods and harvesting of the timber is being done by local coppice workers and the wood worked and sold locally (as much and far as possible). This means work for a local person or a group of people and money from any sales remaining in the local area and circulating in the local economy. A win-win situation for all, not at least the woods.

© 2014

Motown to Growtown

Reforestation and urban farms could help secure Detroit's future.

Four years ago, Detroit businessman John Hantz received national attention when he announced his plans to create the world's largest urban farm in Detroit. His plan to buy vacant city land and convert it to orchards and tree farms was hailed as visionary by some and nefarious by others. After 4 years of negotiating with the city and meeting with neighbors, Hantz Farms was finally able purchase 1,400 vacant city-owned lots on Detroit's lower east side for half a million dollars.

"The purpose of the investment is to make neighborhoods more livable," says Hantz Farms president Mike Score. "Our intention is to take larger blocks of contiguous land and make our woodlands a permanent feature in the city."

In a bankrupt city that has lost a quarter of its population in 10 years, vacant land has become a pressing concern. The city of Detroit is drowning in the financial burden of owning nearly 200,000 vacant parcels—almost half of them residential plots.

The Hantz proposal, initially a plan to create commercial fruit orchards and cut-your-own Christmas tree farms, had been scaled back to a simpler tree-planting project by the time the city approved the land sale in December 2012. Hantz Woodlands—a subsidiary of Hantz Farms—agreed to buy 1,400 vacant parcels from the city, clean up the debris, tear down decaying buildings, plant 15,000 trees, mow the grass regularly, and pay taxes on the land. The parcels are interspersed among homes that people are caring for and living in.

A small, but loud, group of community activists allege that the transaction is a "land grab" and demand that Detroit's surplus land go into a community trust. They accuse Hantz of greed disguised as philanthropy. What if Hantz sells some of those parcels for housing, they ask, and he makes a profit off the cheap land?

Score has posed that question to the people currently living in the area. "If you go up and down the street and ask people, 'What do you really want to happen in this neighborhood?' they say they want a house on every lot," he says. At this time, there isn't a great demand for land in Detroit, but if in the future people decide this is a nice place to live and Hantz Woodlands can build houses on some of its land, Score says the neighbors would be pleased.

Read more: http://www.organicgardening.com/living/motown-to-growtown

Urban trees save hundreds of lives and billions of dollars each year in the U.S.

A new study by the USDA's Forest Service tells us what all good treehuggers already knew; trees are good for you, especially if you live in a urban area. While it's impossible to know exactly what benefits the urban trees bring us - including many psychological ones - the researchers have tried to estimate their impact using computer simulations. Results: About 850 lives are saved each year, the number of acute respiratory symptoms is lower by about 670,000 incidents each year, and the total health care savings attributed to pollution removal by trees is around $7 billion a year. Not bad!

The researchers estimate that the trees in the U.S. removed 17.4 million tonnes of air pollution in a single year. While the air filtration done by trees is much higher in rural areas, the benefits are bigger in urban areas because population density and pollution are denser.

Read more: http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/urban-trees-save-hundreds-lives-and-billions-dollars-each-year-us.html

New report highlights threat to future of forestry industry

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The future of the forestry industry in Scotland is under serious threat unless urgent action is taken to secure the long-term supply of timber, a leading industry figure has warned.

Stuart Goodall, Chief Executive of Confor: Promoting forestry and wood, said action had to be taken now to protect the 40,000 jobs supported by the forestry sector in Scotland, many of them in rural communities with few other large employers.

Speaking after the Forestry Commission (FC) produced its first-ever 50-year and 100-year timber supply forecasts, Mr Goodall said Confor had analysed the figures and concluded that a ‘trough' in supply of 60 million cubic metres of timber could cost Scotland more than 1000 jobs and mean that a chance to cut carbon emissions by 55 million tonnes would be missed.

Mr Goodall said: "Action has to be taken now to safeguard a Scottish success story and ensure our industry continues to thrive in in the long-term. That means hitting existing targets to plant 6000 hectares of commercial forestry every year until 2022 - and then maintaining that through to 2042. We cannot wait until it is too late. A failure to act will see a damaging drop in investment, inevitably leading to job losses - and will make it exceptionally difficult for Scotland to meet its carbon reduction targets."

He added: "The regular 25-year FC forecasts were really helpful - but the life cycle of a softwood tree is more like 35-50 years, so we needed a longer view of where timber supply was heading. Confor feared a falling away of supply in the 30-40 year timeframe, which is why we asked for a 50-year and a 100-year forecast to be prepared. Security of supply is everything in a long-term industry like forestry - that's what the big companies in Scotland, like James Jones, Norbord and Glennons, look at when deciding on future investment."

Currently, the sector is confident, with timber supply at a record high - but Mr Goodall added: "Beyond the 25-year forecast, a gentle rise in availability gives way to a steeper fall - as a result of the falling of commercial planting in the last few years. That's why we analyzed the long-term figures and their impact - and our findings are a serious cause for concern."

Mr Goodall called on the Scottish Government to fulfill its commitment to plant 60,000 hectares of commercial forestry by 2022 - and to further commit to planting 6,000 hectares a year until 2042: "If that happens, we have estimated that 1000 jobs will be secured and 55 million tonnes of carbon can be saved - and the virtuous cycle of economic and environmental benefit will continue. Forestry is an exceptionally important business sector - as well as 40,000 jobs, it adds around £1.7 billion in value to Scotland's economy every year. Increasing domestic planting can also make a hugely positive impact on the balance of payments by reducing imports."

Tom Bruce Jones, a Confor board member and joint Managing Director of Scotland's leading sawmiller James Jones & Sons, said: "The fall-off in supply might seem far away, but we have to act now to secure a successful industry for the future. There is a big problem coming over the horizon - and it wasn't covered by the existing forecast. By the time the traditional cycle of 25-year forecasts had identified this problem, it would have been too late to do anything about it."

Mr Bruce Jones, whose company has substantial operations in Lockerbie, Moray and Angus, added: "We have to start tackling the challenges that are affecting planting rates and to ensure more trees are going into the ground right now. We also need to ensure we are replanting our forests after they are harvested. That will give businesses like ours confidence to keep investing.

"Forestry in Scotland is currently a great success story - so let's to keep it that way. A sustainable timber supply creates long-term investment, which is good for the economy and jobs, good for the environment - and good for Scotland."

Confor has already campaigned successfully in a number of areas: securing a fair balance of grants for planting commercial and non-commercial woodland; speeding up applications for new planting; securing additional Scottish Government funding for new planting; and ensuring existing woodlands removed in the event of disease or for wind farms are re-planted elsewhere.

But Mr Bruce Jones said there was still much to do: "We have to commit to keep planting - it's a simple as that. The industry is in great shape but a failure to act now means that by the time the problem is staring us in the face, it is too late."

The report, the ‘50-Year Forecast of Softwood Availability', is part of the National Forest Inventory. (NFI) It can be downloaded from the Forestry Commission website: www.forestry.gov.uk/inventory

While softwood is one thing, as far as forestry and timber is concerned, what we must look at much more, however, in the UK, and elsewhere, is to bring broadleaved hardwood production back into our woods and forests and especially the practice of coppicing.

But, then again, the Forestry Commission was never designed and created to do that. Its job was the creation, originally, of timber for pits and the war effort and not much seems to have changed in their way of thinking, as softwood is still the main concentration point for their work, it would seem.

Softwood, though not in the regimented plantations either, is fine and good on grounds where other trees may not grow too well but a good mix must be created rather than the monocultures that not only look ugly and are almost devoid of life on the forest floor but which also are susceptible to all manner of diseases.

What forestry and woodland management needs in Britain, including Scotland, is a serious rethink and a new way of doing things which, in fact, is not a new way but a very old one.

© 2014

Sustainable forest management benefits people and the Planet

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

While it’s true that collecting used paper and recycling it into new products is good for the environment, there’s a catch. The wood fibers in paper can be recycled only about five times before they get too weak and break down.

That’s why we need fresh fiber harvested from responsibly managed forests, too. Using fresh fiber creates a sustainable cycle of high-quality recyclable material to continually replenish recycled fiber.

Paper could, yes that is true, also be made from Hemp and from old clothes made from natural materials but the way we make it at present is from wood fiber mostly and thus we must understand that there is absolutely nothing wrong with using wood fiber for paper when the wood for this is being grown and harvested in a sustainable manner, which it is, in most cases.

Would it not be for the paper industry many thousands – tens of thousands – of hectares of forest land would not exists and those forests could they not be used for the production of paper would end up being built upon and thus giving us even more urban and suburban developments and less green spaces.

While the predominate monoculture of trees planted for paper production may not be ideal those forests are better than not having them at all and thus people must think before making statements to the effect that paper produced from wood pulp is bad for the environment because trees are being felled for the making of the paper.

However, it is true that the production of pristine white paper can be polluting and this is where many paper mills and paper manufacturers have a long way to go still towards sustainability and reduced environmental footprint and still need to do a great deal of cleaning up of the industry.

When it comes to the management of forests for paper pulp production or for other purposes such as wood products of all kinds, as well as woodland management, sustainability is the key and the finest way, as far as woodlands for the production of wood for wood products is concerned coppice management cannot be beaten. This method, alas, does not work with coniferous woods needed for paper pulp production, as they do not grow back when cut at the base unlike many of the deciduous trees on our Planet.

A fair amount of people in the green movement believe that cutting trees is bad for the environment and that woodlands and forests do not need management. That is a fallacy, however, and especially forests that are planted by man will need continuous management in order to produce a harvest that is beneficial.

Sustainability in forestry was “invented” before the word ever made it into the vocabulary per se, and the first book on sustainable forest practices was written and published way back in the 18th century by a German forester and much of the management today, until the arrival of the mechanized timer harvesters, is still based on those basic rules and guidelines.

Saying that woods and forests do not need to be managed is like saying that one does not need farms and garden for the growing of food. Forest and woodland management is just farming on a different scale and for a different outcome, namely forest products instead of foodstuffs.

Woodlands and forests are “farmed” for all kinds of products, from firewood, over wooden kitchen utensils and furniture to the timber used in building, not forgetting paper pulp and much in between.

© 2014