next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects A question regarding Fred & Peter's point about loss of nutrients. In a natural deciduous forest of any type that has not been harvested at all, for a 100-year old tree (say), what proportion of the total recyclable nutrients per tree-area will have come from the accumulated annual leaf fall (+ fallen dead branches + feasting caterpillar, squirrel and woodpecker turds, etc), and what proportion will be returned only after the woody trunk and main branches have finally died, fallen down and decayed at age 100? If the first is dominant then the argument about loss of nutrients by logging and tree removal is not strictly valid, whereas if the second dominates, it is. I'm sure somebody must have looked at this carefully, and for different types of forest and different soil types. Are the proportions known? Steve ________________________________________ From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] on behalf of Fred Schueler [bckcdb@istar.ca] Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015 12:28 PM To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca Subject: RE: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry Quoting John and Nhung <nhungjohn@eastlink.ca>: > Yeah, I get the impression that the main problem with the Point Tupper > monster is its size. A smaller operation might have fit in quite nicely. > Of course, the NewPage surprise added to the mess, but mess it is, and I > hope the government ad the operators can ramp back its biomass consumption > to a more sensible, sustainable scale. * I was crafting a more complex reply to this thread, but I'll just say that the problem with biomass harvesting from forests is to get the nutrients removed in the wood back into the forest so successive generation of trees can grow at a decent rate. We tried to deal with this in our county forest here but certain foresters reacted so negatively to the question of fertilization that the advisory committee was illegally terminated as a consequence - but here's our discussion of the nutrient question in forests that are having wood removed - http://pinicola.ca/limnutr.htm - on sand and limestone we've got very low intrinsic levels of nutrients, but the problem exists in all woods if they're intensively exploited. fred. ========================================================== > > Fingers crossed for a mild winter, with minimum demand for firewood! All > this tells me we still need to take solar heat and other renewable sources > more seriously. > > -----Original Message----- > From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] > On Behalf Of Stephen Shaw > Sent: December 24, 2015 11:59 AM > To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca > Subject: RE: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry > > Ed Darby? Abraham Darby I around 1709 modified the blast furnace that had > already been evolving for over a millenium, to consume coke instead of > charcoal as the source of carbon that formed the carbon monoxide used to > reduce raw iron oxide to pig iron, the starting point for other iron > products. Charcoal gave a purer iron product, but making coke from coal > proved much cheaper than making charcoal from harvested trees, by then a > scarce commodity. For both charcoal and coke, a main byproduct was/is CO2 > gas from the finally oxidised carbon, released into the atmosphere. The > cheaper Darby coke method, later improved, caught on rapidly: a gnomic irony > of this is that while saving some of the CO2-consuming much diminished > forests from approaching extinction, it led rapidly to much greater iron > production via burning fossil carbon that underpinned the Industrial > Revolution in Britain, which in turn led to ever increasing CO2 emissions, > eventually worldwide. > > On a lesser point not covered by reporter Aaron Beswick's article in the C-H > that Dave referred to, if you had tried to get a few cords of 16" cut > firewood for your wood stove in early 2015, as we did, you would have found > that initially, none of the local suppliers around Halifax could get any > logs, because they believed that such wood that had been harvested was > nearly all going directly to Point Tupper biomass monster, because that had > been built too large for the available supply of so-called 'waste' wood and > bark. Central planning at its very best. Our supplier eventually got some > logs from New Brunswick, but the price went up considerably. > Steve > ________________________________________ > From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] on > behalf of David & Alison Webster [dwebster@glinx.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 7:12 PM > To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca > Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry > > Hi Nick & All, Dec 23, 2015 > I have only few minutes so will deal with the "gnomic" question first > and return later to the rest. > It was a new word to me so I had to consult a dictionary which referred > me to sententious= Aphoristic, pithy, given to the use of maxims; (of > persons) = fond of pompous moralizing; maxim= A general truth drawn from > science or experience. > I think we should both plead guilty to the "gnomic" charge and be > flattered. As for the "pompous moralizing"; I am frequently inclined to > quote the King James Bible but then remember: "Be not righteous over much, > neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself ?"; > Ecclesiastes 7:16; and decide not to. > > Merry Christmas All & A Happy New Year > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Nicholas Hill<mailto:fernhillns@gmail.com> > To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca<mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca> > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 4:32 PM > Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry > > A friend recently accused me of being "gnomic", and ill-educated lout as i > am, i took issue at being called a gnome, but moving into this here case at > hand, I think the gnomes have it: "And warning that use of biomass is not > green is perhaps already an effective way to indirectly kill trees." Not > exactly gnomic but not entirely designed for clarity and explicitness. Then > we have: "And if not now, then without doubt in the future." This non > sentence leaves us without a doubt in the future waiting with and like Godot > for some Christmas clarety. > > Ser