freeasaburt
ArboristSite Operative
https://science.slashdot.org/story/...dified-trees-have-been-planted-in-a-us-forest
Thought some might find this interesting.
Thought some might find this interesting.
Genetically modified poplars for faster harvesting.
- Thread starter freeasaburt
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Terrible idea, not just genetic manipulation, but they idea is to make a fast growing pulp wood... have you noticed pulp prices lately? Most pulp is just byproduct of actual timber production, since popular makes a ****** boards.. its all pulp.
way back in the 1990's even the 1980's loads of farmers out here planted a "fast growing pulp tree" (poplular) well... now them trees are over mature and there hasn't been a reliable market for them since the microsoft exploded
way back in the 1990's even the 1980's loads of farmers out here planted a "fast growing pulp tree" (poplular) well... now them trees are over mature and there hasn't been a reliable market for them since the microsoft exploded
More and Faster and More-Faster is the problem with our collective culture(s.)
Nothing good will come of it.
Nothing good will come of it.
freeasaburt
ArboristSite Operative
I definitely agree, and think a lot can be attributed to overpopulation.
Although 'overconsumption' is an issue too, I despise the idea of giving up personal freedoms, as well as maximizing all kinds of yields (quantity, not quality wise...) just to accomodate more people on this planet with very finite resources.
When I hear this or that so called expert claim that "there's more than enough for everybody on earth, it just needs to be divided more equally", I cringe. Not per se because it's leftist, but because in my opinion it's just a statistical falsehood.
But I digress, a bit
.
Although 'overconsumption' is an issue too, I despise the idea of giving up personal freedoms, as well as maximizing all kinds of yields (quantity, not quality wise...) just to accomodate more people on this planet with very finite resources.
When I hear this or that so called expert claim that "there's more than enough for everybody on earth, it just needs to be divided more equally", I cringe. Not per se because it's leftist, but because in my opinion it's just a statistical falsehood.
But I digress, a bit
.
Here's the guy who basically invented hybrid poplar as a fast-growing pulpwood species. I had the pleasure of seeing him speak on the subject a few years ago. Here's his excellent and very readable book on cottonwood ecology. Blame industry, not hybridization.
I am kind of confused about poplar. Here in Ct what we have as poplar seems to be what they call quaking aspen in West Virginia and tulip tree gets called yellow poplar but the yellow is often omitted. I am pretty sure they have large facilities to make oriented strand board out of the yellow poplar. I don't see a link to the bark and the leaf of what the article in post 1 is about. The last "book" linked to is on the west coast. It seems more than pulp also carbon capture just following links in the first paragraph of post 1.
And then there is cottonwood. I see the cotton like stuff floating (Say Sommers and Enfield ct) in the air once in a while but not where I actually have some poplar trees.
And then there is cottonwood. I see the cotton like stuff floating (Say Sommers and Enfield ct) in the air once in a while but not where I actually have some poplar trees.
Franny K , check your private messages .
If I'm not mistaken, Poplar is used quite a bit in the Furniture industry, so the boards can't be that bad. Pulp? Lots of uses for Pulp production you may be disregarding.
You're not mistaken.
cheap furniture yes. Pallets and dunage too for that matter, none of it really worth the effort to plant, grow or harvest. there is more then enough growing naturally that what is harvested is hard to get rid of as it is, so I ask again why would you want something that grows faster if its worthless to begin with?
But still, poplar is mostly a pulp wood, and pulp prices have been in the toilet since at least 1999... literally...
too put it in simple terms.
if and when I'm asked to haul poplar (cottonwood, black poplar) its a matter of A finding anyone that wants it, and B; making sure I'm even going to get paid, which 9-10 its not even enough to cover trucking.
As for the hybrid stands planted in the 80's-90's slash and burn, cause its not worth the diesel to haul it away. Further bankrupting farmers (who really should have known better)
Its one of the many reasons I say you should never trust anyone in a suit or a cowboy hat, they are trying to sell you something you don't need or want.
if and when I'm asked to haul poplar (cottonwood, black poplar) its a matter of A finding anyone that wants it, and B; making sure I'm even going to get paid, which 9-10 its not even enough to cover trucking.
As for the hybrid stands planted in the 80's-90's slash and burn, cause its not worth the diesel to haul it away. Further bankrupting farmers (who really should have known better)
Its one of the many reasons I say you should never trust anyone in a suit or a cowboy hat, they are trying to sell you something you don't need or want.
full rant mode now...
if you have marginal land that would be good for timber. Plant species that are A: native to your area B: always hold value C: Diversify D: planting the "next big thing" is never a good idea be it beans or trees, inevitably all the local morons plant the same species then come harvest time its valueless because everyone has it, simple supply and demand economics. But if you plant the stuff that is hard to grow, and has always been in demand, it will always have value.
if you have marginal land that would be good for timber. Plant species that are A: native to your area B: always hold value C: Diversify D: planting the "next big thing" is never a good idea be it beans or trees, inevitably all the local morons plant the same species then come harvest time its valueless because everyone has it, simple supply and demand economics. But if you plant the stuff that is hard to grow, and has always been in demand, it will always have value.
freeasaburt
ArboristSite Operative
Sounds like good advice. Monocultures are also more prone to diseases/pests, diversity brings resilience.
If you harvest your timber in a sort of sustainable way, e. g. the way the way it's done in Sweden (the state owned forests), you don't even need to plant a damn thing. They leave some trees, of different (and desired) species, which take care of propagation. There's other 'eco' things they do too, like leaving 'wildlife depots', as I believe they are called, also they top/cut in half some trees and leave a good portion dead standing, also for wildlife, like woodpeckers etc. And they cut a lot, seems like a very profitable industry.
If you harvest your timber in a sort of sustainable way, e. g. the way the way it's done in Sweden (the state owned forests), you don't even need to plant a damn thing. They leave some trees, of different (and desired) species, which take care of propagation. There's other 'eco' things they do too, like leaving 'wildlife depots', as I believe they are called, also they top/cut in half some trees and leave a good portion dead standing, also for wildlife, like woodpeckers etc. And they cut a lot, seems like a very profitable industry.
Big market for old poplar in South Georgia. Only problem, it’s a once in a lifetime harvest. Needs to be 35-50 years old. It goes from $15 a ton as a young tree to pretty good price per tree if it matures. We’ve got a stand that the forester told us is about 15-20 years away. Maybe it’ll pay off my grandkids tuition.
newforest
ArboristSite Operative
Nowhere does that article actually correctly identify the species that was modified.
“Poplar” could be “Yellow” / “Tulip” Poplar = Liriodendron tulipifera in the Latin binomial.
In the northern half of the country, “Poplar” can refer to 2 members of the Populus genera, P. tremuloides (Quaking Aspen) or P. grandidentata (Bigtooth Aspen). Also often called just “Popple.”
Saying a planting on bottomland in the southeastern USA will cut a rotation time from 60 years to 30 betrays a massive ignorance of southern timber species. Down that way, high intensity management (i.e. heavy capital $ investment), has now reduced rotation time for Loblolly Pine to below 25 years, and that includes the sawlog harvest at the end. That species straight loves “bottom” land. Pure pulp rotations can be only 15 years (smart play on a dry site near a mill.)
I have seen this article posted many places. Early successional species like Liriodendron and the Populus genera already grow extremely fast. Also, growing pulp fiber does basically nothing to sequester carbon as the CO2 all gets released all over again when you just turn the wood into toilet paper anyway. The fastest growing stuff doesn’t make good lumber and the fast growing species rarely live very long, which just releases the carbon when they die.
These trees -might- have an interesting application as a nurse crop for native tree species to come in underneath them on extremely degraded land such as surface mine sites -if- they can handle the very poor soils, which could go either way.
Overall, this effort always reads to me like a solution in search of a problem and I find it telling that I have yet to see it written about by any real Forestry type publication.
“Poplar” could be “Yellow” / “Tulip” Poplar = Liriodendron tulipifera in the Latin binomial.
In the northern half of the country, “Poplar” can refer to 2 members of the Populus genera, P. tremuloides (Quaking Aspen) or P. grandidentata (Bigtooth Aspen). Also often called just “Popple.”
Saying a planting on bottomland in the southeastern USA will cut a rotation time from 60 years to 30 betrays a massive ignorance of southern timber species. Down that way, high intensity management (i.e. heavy capital $ investment), has now reduced rotation time for Loblolly Pine to below 25 years, and that includes the sawlog harvest at the end. That species straight loves “bottom” land. Pure pulp rotations can be only 15 years (smart play on a dry site near a mill.)
I have seen this article posted many places. Early successional species like Liriodendron and the Populus genera already grow extremely fast. Also, growing pulp fiber does basically nothing to sequester carbon as the CO2 all gets released all over again when you just turn the wood into toilet paper anyway. The fastest growing stuff doesn’t make good lumber and the fast growing species rarely live very long, which just releases the carbon when they die.
These trees -might- have an interesting application as a nurse crop for native tree species to come in underneath them on extremely degraded land such as surface mine sites -if- they can handle the very poor soils, which could go either way.
Overall, this effort always reads to me like a solution in search of a problem and I find it telling that I have yet to see it written about by any real Forestry type publication.
Similar threads
