| Author | Post |
|---|
aaron_brewer@hotmail.com
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 16th, 2005 05:18 am |
|
I just read Fred Morgan's article about "Deforesting and Reforesting" that is linked in the Finca Leola web site. It is an informative and reflective article. I would like to ask if the harvesting of trees from the tree farms of Finca Leola truely are super-sustainable? And, how are the cuts different than the conversion of virgin forest to pasture?
I understand that harvesting timber removes nutrients from the soil, and causes a significant dusturbance to neighboring plants. How can you plan to cut your way to reforestation? Are the two purposes not contradictory?
I had another question. How will buying land to plant and harvest trees lead to reforestation in perpetuity? It seems at best the only known outcome will be the tempory use of the land for raising a crop of trees. I see this as a wise and noble use, but I have doubts about the future of tree farms as future forest reserves. Their fate seems ruled by the next generation, and their ideas for the right use of the land, which may very well be simply to harvest the trees.
Best of luck to all tree farmers,
Aaron
|
Fred Morgan
Sponsor
|
Posted: Wed Mar 16th, 2005 07:39 am |
|
Hello Aaron,
Some very good questions! In fact, they are the very kind of questions that led us to our current plans.
1. Does removing trees remove some of the nutrients. Answer - depends on the tree - if you are growing trees like Gmelina (softwood - fast growth) then the answer would be yes. Teak also is a pretty heavy feeder. Remember though, it also takes away carbon - which is very important for reducing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Many tropical trees actually produce nutrients (legumes) when they are younger - so you get a net gain.
2. Does it cause a significant disturbance of the neighboring vegetation? Again, the answer is yes. A certain amount of this is very good - in fact, a mature rainforest is expected to have mature trees topple over periodicly creating open spaces in the rainforest to stimulate new growth. Secondary growth rainforest are much more important to wildlife than primary. We are impressed with primary forest (wow - look at that big tree) but secondary forest have much more food. A good book to read is "Tropical Nature"
How you harvest is also important - clear cutting and planting again has some benefits - but some disadvantages as well. Total clear cutting is not a good thing in my opinion - unless the forest has been so destroyed by "High Grading" that all that is left is genetically inferior trees.
3. Buying land to plant a tree crop secures the land. Then, after a single cycle (say no more than 25 years) the land turns into a perpetual forest. This is different than clear cutting and replanting another tree crop in the following ways:
- While the plantation trees are being grown, when there are trees that don't make it (genetics normally - not all trees grow well - the figure is usually about 10% ) they will be replaced by slower growing natives. This means, when the plantation trees are all harvested, there will be a significant forest of fairly mature trees - and most of these trees produce food for the animals.
- After the plantation trees are gone, no cutting will occur except that which is necessary to improve the forest. Again, really big trees are interesting - and there will always be some in some of the areas, but generally - they are not as good ecologically as trees in their prime of life. Also, geneticly inferior trees, damaged trees, and diseased trees will be removed. The removal will be done as non-invasively as possible. (for example - using portable sawmills instead of hauling the log through the farm) Since the cutting of the wood will occur in the forest itself - the remains of the tree will go back into the forest - only about 40% of the tree is used for lumber. The sell of this lumber will pay for those who work on the forest. It might even produce some profit for the owners of the forest. (It does in Europe)
4. A perpetual forest is different from a wild forest in the following ways:
- It is protected. As you can see in USA - many national parks permit harvesting of trees. Large commercial organization can put pressure on governments to permit cutting in national forest preserves.
- It is managed. A forest doesn't really care about wildlife - wildlife just tries to survive in it. However, by intelligently planting certain trees (and other plants) you can increase the biodiversity of an area. The black forest in Germany is a very good example of a perpetual forest.
- Timber is removed. Most of the biomass remains in the forest - and the lumber captures CO2 which is very important now. A tree that rots on the ground gives up it's CO2 - build a home out of it, and that CO2 is tied up for years and years longer. As strange as it may seem - for the good of the environment - we need to harvest trees. This is not clear cutting, but selective removal of certain trees.
5. What happens with the next generation? Nothing except what we are planning - we are placing an Ecologic Easement on the property that says that FOREVER the land use can not change from what we are planning. You are correct - otherwise a future generation can decide that they want the money tied up in the land and forest and clearcut it. The land could be sold - but only to a buyer who agrees to maintain the plan.
I tend to agree with you Aaron - Can you really call what you are doing reforestation when the end result isn't a forest? The plantations of Finca Leola S.A. will become the forest of Finca Leola S.A. and will remain that way.
Fred
|
LogRite
Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 30th, 2005 01:43 am |
|
I think the main thing I'm trying to come to grips with is the length of planning. My typical timeline based on my years in the working world has revolved around 2 year projects. The time seems like forever when you are starting, but that it flew by when you're nearing the implementation date. Planning a harvestable crop followed by a period of re-growth into an unmanaged forest is a 35+ year undertaking. I commend you on such forward thinking.
|
Fred Morgan
Sponsor
|
Posted: Fri Sep 30th, 2005 01:59 am |
|
Thanks for the compliment. I guess what works is that the return from our trees will carry us over, and then some. Besides, what else am I going to be doing for the next 35 years? 
Being the impatient type, we bought a farm this year which is already through the pioneer species period and has harvestable trees - now we are interplanting with the next succession trees. We are constantly having to harvest a few trees all the time due to natural causes. This lets us experiment now.
Perhaps the reason we are doing this also is that much of the issues that we are now facing is because of short-term decisions. I guess all of us are going to need to take a longer view. I suspect we are all learning, at times the hard way, that just taking all we can now can really cause problems later.
What is amazing to me is that we haven't really sacrificed much - ( winter ? )- by doing this. We had to invest for our future anyway. We just wanted to do it in a away that made things a little better all the time.
|
Current time is 03:01 am | |
|
|
|
