Plan to Stop Deforestation

[Guerilla]

So I was in the forest the other day, and I'm thinking about the forests getting cut down and I have an idea. What if we just cut the trees in half instead of chopping them down?

Chop the top half off, and the tree will keep growing and it will be even wider and bushier.

Forest height isn't a big deal to nature, is it?



Any other solutions?

[southwest88]

So I was in the forest the other day, and I'm thinking about the forests getting cut down and I have an idea. What if we just cut the trees in half instead of chopping them down?

Chop the top half off, and the tree will keep growing and it will be even wider and bushier.

Forest height isn't a big deal to nature, is it?

Any other solutions?

In old jungle, you get triple-canopies, each with its own flora & fauna. I'm not sure you can just cut away the top of the trees without killing a lot of the trees & their associated lianas, climbers, creepers, & any specialized biospheres that birds, animals may need. In terms of oxygen generation, the top layers of the oceans do more of that than the trees/jungle, as I recall. But the deep jungles may still harbor plants that we can derive useful drugs from.

& the jungle/forests root the soil, & keep it from washing away in flood or lots of rain. The forests & jungles are in trouble, though, as we clear-cut in order to raise crops or food animals. Which implies roads or other transport routes, cutting across the land, followed by villages, towns, cities, power lines, all the usual stuff that goes with people moving in. Cleared jungle is typically poor soil, depleted in a few years. Then the cutters move on to the next patch of jungle. I assume that cleared forest land is initially better soil, & can be maintained with reasonable care.

Solutions include reducing the growth rate in the number of humans - the Third World is still growing @ massive numbers - Africa, Middle East, South & Central America. The industrialized countries consume lots more resources per capita than the Third World, though - which is what causes a lot of the political wrangling about the issues in the UN, for instance. Eventually, we'll likely have to replace red meat as a protein source - just because of the economics & resource allocation of raising, slaughtering, transporting beef, as opposed to chickens or tofu. Fish & seafood stocks are under pressure, unless we can learn to mass-produce tilapia, catfish, etc. @ a reasonable cost. Probably with combined operations - crops/tilapia - a form of intensive cultivation.

[Dragonborn Herald]

I don't think Deforest Kelly would like this thread about him.

[Dr. Who]

So I was in the forest the other day, and I'm thinking about the forests getting cut down and I have an idea. What if we just cut the trees in half instead of chopping them down?

Chop the top half off, and the tree will keep growing and it will be even wider and bushier.

Forest height isn't a big deal to nature, is it?



Any other solutions?
If you chop off the leaf bearing part of the tree, it might die.

[Cthulhu]

So I was in the forest the other day, and I'm thinking about the forests getting cut down and I have an idea. What if we just cut the trees in half instead of chopping them down?

Chop the top half off, and the tree will keep growing and it will be even wider and bushier.

Forest height isn't a big deal to nature, is it?



Any other solutions?
A few problems.

It would be a new type of logging, which the industry will resist.

And height does matter to certain species, but it is better than having no tree at all.

The odds of most trees surviving is minimal. Infection and such will likely kill the tree unless awesome measures were taken. Which would cost industry big bucks and would seriously Nerf several economies.

Sent from my evil kitten eating cell phone.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I don't think Deforest Kelly would like this thread about him. Neither would C. Deforest Fordetrees

[Candace Camp]

We deforest for land not for timber. In fact, the forestry industry plants more than it cuts down.

[Polecat]

We deforest for land not for timber. In fact, the forestry industry plants more than it cuts down.

That is correct. Farming is the culprit.

[Reason10]

So I was in the forest the other day, and I'm thinking about the forests getting cut down and I have an idea. What if we just cut the trees in half instead of chopping them down?

Chop the top half off, and the tree will keep growing and it will be even wider and bushier.

Forest height isn't a big deal to nature, is it?



Any other solutions?

Well, in America forestry is a renewable resource. Whenever Americans cut down trees, they replant.

Deforestation is rampant in third world shtholes, where socialist government policies have everyone starving to death. In Haiti, they are so poor that they cut down trees for fuel to cook with.

[Hal Jordan]

I don't think Deforest Kelly would like this thread about him.

He's dead, Jim.

[Common Sense]

The main culprit in deforestation, particularly in tropical and subtropical climes, is our addiction to palm oil.

[donttread]

So I was in the forest the other day, and I'm thinking about the forests getting cut down and I have an idea. What if we just cut the trees in half instead of chopping them down?

Chop the top half off, and the tree will keep growing and it will be even wider and bushier.

Forest height isn't a big deal to nature, is it?



Any other solutions?

Interesting thought. Try to combine old growth and new growth so to speak. I'm not sure what the survival rate for the trees would be but I do believe the cost of harvesting per board foot would rise dramatically.

[donttread]

We deforest for land not for timber. In fact, the forestry industry plants more than it cuts down.

Perhaps but trees grow very slowly, so the fact that they "plant more than they cut down" is fairly meaningless industry propaganda

[southwest88]

So I was in the forest the other day, and I'm thinking about the forests getting cut down and I have an idea. What if we just cut the trees in half instead of chopping them down?

Chop the top half off, and the tree will keep growing and it will be even wider and bushier.

...


I looked around on the 'Net - it's possible to trim a tree, but removing the top half completely seems like a bad idea. & trimming is on a case-by-case basis, & seems to require a lot of attention & care after the fact. If we're talking about commercial logging - that won't work, the economics are bad. Logging is either clear-cutting (everything - all the trees except the ones too small in diameter), or a more selective cutting of individual trees, 2 to 4 passes over 10 years. Clear-cutting gets you more money faster, but selective cutting is more sustainable.

Either way, you have to get into the trees in order to bring in chain saws, hoists, trucks, etc. With jungle or very dense forests, that means blazing temp roads, or bringing in blimps or some other method of moving big heavy loads. The road net (typically used) may cause more damage than actual clear-cutting - as it facilitates people moving in to work the forest edge, raise a few years of crops (until soil exhaustion sets in), run cattle. Then when the soil wears out, the circus moves & sets up in a new spot, & repeats the cycle.

[Guerilla]

I looked around on the 'Net - it's possible to trim a tree, but removing the top half completely seems like a bad idea. & trimming is on a case-by-case basis, & seems to require a lot of attention & care after the fact. If we're talking about commercial logging - that won't work, the economics are bad. Logging is either clear-cutting (everything - all the trees except the ones too small in diameter), or a more selective cutting of individual trees, 2 to 4 passes over 10 years. Clear-cutting gets you more money faster, but selective cutting is more sustainable.

Either way, you have to get into the trees in order to bring in chain saws, hoists, trucks, etc. With jungle or very dense forests, that means blazing temp roads, or bringing in blimps or some other method of moving big heavy loads. The road net (typically used) may cause more damage than actual clear-cutting - as it facilitates people moving in to work the forest edge, raise a few years of crops (until soil exhaustion sets in), run cattle. Then when the soil wears out, the circus moves & sets up in a new spot, & repeats the cycle.

I see what you mean about the commercial aspect of it. Do you think it would work better economically if the industry became more localized? I said cut in half for simplification, sorry, I think we should find a tree that branches a lot. I don't mean cutting down the Amazon, I know it's more complex there, I don't mean redwoods, but if we could find a species that can be pruned often, and fits the industry, then we could use those instead of clearcutting. I hear they grow spruce trees, but they take a long time to mature and then you have to start over, wouldn't a prunable tree be better in the long run?

As was pointed out by someone already, they clearcut for things like farming as well. I think this method of farming is also destructive and is a worse method than others in the long run, making clearcutting all the more pointless, and more important to find a new way to harvest wood.

Also, we could breed trees to be easier to prune and branch more or something, like we breed animals and plants for better food, or dogs. If we pruned patches of forests, they would acclimatize, evolve, and grow in such a way to be pruned more, because that's the environment that we put it in to live. I realize trees probably don't evolve fast. Do you think GMO trees would be ok since it's just for wood, as long as we keep it from spreading?

[southwest88]

I see what you mean about the commercial aspect of it. Do you think it would work better economically if the industry became more localized? I said cut in half for simplification, sorry, I think we should find a tree that branches a lot. I don't mean cutting down the Amazon, I know it's more complex there, I don't mean redwoods, but if we could find a species that can be pruned often, and fits the industry, then we could use those instead of clearcutting. I hear they grow spruce trees, but they take a long time to mature and then you have to start over, wouldn't a prunable tree be better in the long run?

As was pointed out by someone already, they clearcut for things like farming as well. I think this method of farming is also destructive and is a worse method than others in the long run, making clearcutting all the more pointless, and more important to find a new way to harvest wood.

Also, we could breed trees to be easier to prune and branch more or something, like we breed animals and plants for better food, or dogs. If we pruned patches of forests, they would acclimatize, evolve, and grow in such a way to be pruned more, because that's the environment that we put it in to live. I realize trees probably don't evolve fast. Do you think GMO trees would be ok since it's just for wood, as long as we keep it from spreading?

I don't know the ins & outs of forestry. Localizing the industry would make it difficult for the individual operations to have sufficient cash flow for equipment, cutting rights, personnel - unless you set up some kind of cooperative. Pines grow quickly - or used to - I don't know how well pines are doing in the increasingly warm & water-stressed & insect-infested last couple of decades in the US. I think they're suffering, if not as much as the hardwoods.

The other possibility is to go with something more exotic - bamboo, for instance. Bamboo grows very fast - it's a grass. & it's well-adapted to higher temperatures. The lack of water might be a problem - you'd have to check if it made more sense to grow sugar cane or bamboo. I think bamboo is more versatile - plumbing, crafting, fiber, the young shoots are edible, etc. What we need is a George Washington Carver of bamboo - & any other plant that could reasonably take the place of trees.

I'm leery of GMO trees or even grasses (like bamboo). GMO corn, beans, & similar products are easily spread by wind - & the Monsantos & other patent holders have been absolutely draconian in protecting their intellectual property rights in the US & in the World. There's also a contamination issue - if something gets loose among the grasses that makes them vulnerable - that's the cereals - corn, wheat, rye, rice, millet, barley, oats, sorghum, etc. - a lot of staple carbohydrates (& proteins & fats & oils) in the World. Think the Potato Famine, write large across the World. We'd have a massive die-off, & it would be extremely ugly.

In the end, I think we'll wind up cultivating vat-grown protein - like chicken or turkey in nutritional analysis. Of course, we can texture, color, & give it various flavors - but I think the days of free-range food animals are coming to a close - because we simply can't keep the fish, chickens, meat isolated from particulates, air borne chemicals & contaminants, bad water, & so on.

[Guerilla]

I don't know the ins & outs of forestry. Localizing the industry would make it difficult for the individual operations to have sufficient cash flow for equipment, cutting rights, personnel - unless you set up some kind of cooperative. Pines grow quickly - or used to - I don't know how well pines are doing in the increasingly warm & water-stressed & insect-infested last couple of decades in the US. I think they're suffering, if not as much as the hardwoods.

The other possibility is to go with something more exotic - bamboo, for instance. Bamboo grows very fast - it's a grass. & it's well-adapted to higher temperatures. The lack of water might be a problem - you'd have to check if it made more sense to grow sugar cane or bamboo. I think bamboo is more versatile - plumbing, crafting, fiber, the young shoots are edible, etc. What we need is a George Washington Carver of bamboo - & any other plant that could reasonably take the place of trees.

I'm leery of GMO trees or even grasses (like bamboo). GMO corn, beans, & similar products are easily spread by wind - & the Monsantos & other patent holders have been absolutely draconian in protecting their intellectual property rights in the US & in the World. There's also a contamination issue - if something gets loose among the grasses that makes them vulnerable - that's the cereals - corn, wheat, rye, rice, millet, barley, oats, sorghum, etc. - a lot of staple carbohydrates (& proteins & fats & oils) in the World. Think the Potato Famine, write large across the World. We'd have a massive die-off, & it would be extremely ugly.

In the end, I think we'll wind up cultivating vat-grown protein - like chicken or turkey in nutritional analysis. Of course, we can texture, color, & give it various flavors - but I think the days of free-range food animals are coming to a close - because we simply can't keep the fish, chickens, meat isolated from particulates, air borne chemicals & contaminants, bad water, & so on.

I didn't know pine trees were drought sensitive. On the way to Northern CA sometime last year, around Red Bluff, or Redding, there was swaths of brown pine trees. There were some green, and it stopped as you got deeper into the mountain/forest area, but I hadn't seen anything like that before. I thought it was disease, but maybe it was the drought.

I agree, it would be better to find another plant(s) altogether than to use wood for so much. There are a lot of plants that have unique molecules, or structures that we could use. Bamboo grows fast, is strong, and can be used for lot's of things, so that could be one to look into. Cannabis could also be used in lot's of industries, it matures fast, is strong, easy to grow, versatile. There is a plant that eats metal (http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/metal-eating-plant-discovered-and-its-already-at-risk-140513.htm), and is being looked into to mine metals from soil, or clean metal polluted areas, without so much machinery or intrusiveness.

What do you mean by "something gets lose among the grasses"? Do you mean disease prone plants from low diversity, or do you mean the pollen contaminating other fields?

I haven't looked into the lab grown protein a lot yet, so I don't know, but I'd be leery of it.

[southwest88]

I didn't know pine trees were drought sensitive. On the way to Northern CA sometime last year, around Red Bluff, or Redding, there was swaths of brown pine trees. There were some green, and it stopped as you got deeper into the mountain/forest area, but I hadn't seen anything like that before. I thought it was disease, but maybe it was the drought.

I agree, it would be better to find another plant(s) altogether than to use wood for so much. There are a lot of plants that have unique molecules, or structures that we could use. Bamboo grows fast, is strong, and can be used for lot's of things, so that could be one to look into. Cannabis could also be used in lot's of industries, it matures fast, is strong, easy to grow, versatile. There is a plant that eats metal (http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/metal-eating-plant-discovered-and-its-already-at-risk-140513.htm), and is being looked into to mine metals from soil, or clean metal polluted areas, without so much machinery or intrusiveness.

What do you mean by "something gets lose among the grasses"? Do you mean disease prone plants from low diversity, or do you mean the pollen contaminating other fields?

I haven't looked into the lab grown protein a lot yet, so I don't know, but I'd be leery of it.

In the US West & Southwest, @ least, several factors are snowballing & killing long-established forests. 1. The gradually rising average temperature - drying out the soil, stressing the trees & other plants. 2. The lack of water/snowpack - also stressing the plants. 3. The rising average temperature reduces cold weather, so less snow falls. The higher temps mean that insect populations aren't wiped out each year, or have to go into dormancy. Thus the trees & plants are attacked all year, or nearly so. This all leads to die-backs in trees, increasing rain runoff when it does rain (the unsteady rainfall patterns mean that the rain - when it comes - tends to come all @ once) uprooting weakened trees, stripping off topsoil, mulch, causing mudslides, property destruction, etc. Also drowning creeks & small rivers, killing fish & etc. there, & interrupting water use for drinking.

Yah, cannabis is one crop, hemp is another. Here in NM, the governor recently vetoed a bill that would have encouraged the growth of hemp for cordage, fiber, oils, etc. Apparently, there's still a lot of fallout from hemp's relationship with cannabis. (The gov. is a law-&-order former prosecuting attorney, but NM needs the economic diversification - so I expect that growing hemp for industrial uses will prevail, eventually.)

Yah, the GMOs for corn, Roundup, & etc. easily cross the planting boundaries that the manufacturers swore up & down that they would scrupulously observe. The manufacturers mostly take the owners of the invaded crops to court, & force them to pay for the stolen pollen/seed, & sign NDAs, & pay damages, attorney's fees, filing fees, punitive fees, & any other act of highway robbery their legal dept.s can dream up.

& yes, crop diversity is another issue. I had mentioned the Potato Blight of the 1800s - if the seed manufacturers have their way, only their products will be grown Worldwide. So if some genetic vulnerability is endlessly replicated across the World, a single-source crop failure could lead to mass starvation. & the World is only a few meals away from anarchy.

[Polecat]

Disease, drought and fire are always a threat to large stands of any type of tree. Colorado had a major loss to insects. The only smart thing to do is clear the dead or dying tinderbox so new trees can be established.

[southwest88]

Disease, drought and fire are always a threat to large stands of any type of tree. Colorado had a major loss to insects. The only smart thing to do is clear the dead or dying tinderbox so new trees can be established.

Yah, agreed. But the piling up of factors - the three above plus increasing average temps - mean that long-established forests are becoming unviable in their new surroundings. Park Service, Ag. Dept., needs to get going (they likely have - the problem is of long standing) on IDing or creating new groundcover, bushes, trees to anchor the forests & green spaces we have now in the W & SW - & start investigating the same for continued bad inputs. Trees take a long time to mature.

Push comes to shove, we may wind up with cactus kinds of plantings - in extremis, of course. The old-growth tree ecosystems are suffering, dying & retreating either north or uphill in the W & SW. Something will replace them, we may as well tweak the process to get the best outcome we can, for the plants, animals, people out there. The point is that we can do something about these changes, if we pay attention & start long-term planning.

[Polecat]

I think that it is critical for planners to always spend extra effort in second guessing their ideas. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we always should . The last 200 years are a great example of ecological blunders that started out with well laid plans.

[waltky]

Planting Kudzu is another good soil conservator in areas prone to landslides and mudslides...
http://www.politicalforum.com/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif
UN: Lentils, Chickpeas Can Help Reverse Dangerous Trend of Soil Erosion
December 06, 2016 — Planting more lentils, chickpeas and other pulses will improve the health of the world's soils that have reached critical levels, threatening to worsen hunger and poverty levels, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said on Monday.


About a third of the world's soils are degraded because of soil erosion, contamination, urbanization and other issues. This is a rise from the early 1990s, when it was estimated to be between 16 and 24 percent, said Ronald Vargas, soils and land officer at the U.N. agency, and co-editor of a report published on Monday. With cities expanding and taking up more land, and the population growing and needing more food, the pressure on remaining land is growing. "If our soil is not healthy enough, we will have serious issues," Vargas told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. It will take 15 years or more and a huge amount of investment to restore the soil, he said.

Pulses transfer nitrogen from the atmosphere to the soil and can be grown practically anywhere. Cereals grown after pulses yield 1.5 tons more per hectare, equivalent to adding 100 kilos of nitrogen fertilizer, the FAO report said. "Soils and pulses embody a unique symbiosis that protects the environment, enhances productivity, contributes to adapting to climate change and provides fundamental nutrients to the soil and subsequent crops," FAO director-general Jose Graziano da Silva said in a statement. The main form of degradation is soil erosion - the loss of the topsoil by wind, rain or excessive use of machinery. The world is currently losing soil 10 to 20 times faster than it is replenishing it, according to the FAO report.


http://gdb.voanews.com/CB2CB3F2-4AA4-42F7-8A66-A75A761444BE_w250_r1_s.jpg
An employee collects lentils from a container inside a grocery store at a residential area in Mumbai, India.

It takes nature between 100 and 1,000 years to produce 1 cm of soil, and if poorly maintained it can be lost in a single rainfall, or high wind, Vargas said. "It is almost impossible to bring back that soil loss. So what you can do is try to avoid losing more," he said. A study in India shows how growing pigeon peas reduced soil runoff and erosion by up to 59 percent, according to the report. Healthy soil acts like a sponge, absorbing even very heavy rainfall, and filtering it. If the soil is compacted by overuse of agricultural machinery, or walking, the rain is not absorbed, and instead washes the soil away and may cause flooding.

A layer of healthy soil also reduces harmful greenhouse gases. The first metre of soil contains as much carbon as exists in the atmosphere and all vegetation combined. If it is poorly managed, carbon is released into the atmosphere, Vargas said. The consequences of not managing soil better are serious, Vargas said. "We will be facing poverty, we will have more issues of food security ... we will not be able to deal with ... floods and drought. So we will compromise our future," he said.

http://www.voanews.com/a/reu-un-lentils-chickpeas-can-help-reverse-dangerous-trend-of-soil-erosion/3624709.html