[Stoves] planting trees ( the way I'd do it 1, 000, 000, 000 years from now)

[Carefreeland at aol.com]

Kevin and Stovers, 
    I am desperately wanting to farther study points  1,2,5 and 6. You got 
my attention buddy. Sorry, I don't have a 100 year old  experiment to show 
you the results of my work. I do not do research papers  because I'm an 
illiterate idiot. Many of you who have been on this list a while  may remember- 
this letter will be a small record of the state of a sample of my  research. 
Nobody has me asked this lately but you, Kevin. I'll probably die  knowing 
and wanting to know way more than I can ever tell, if I talked the rest  of 
my life. It just seems to bore everybody but some Biomass people. I miss you  
all out here alone trapped in the future. 
    My extensive experience with landscaping and  gardening suggests we 
have only begun to barely scratch the surface of  multicropping research. 
Mother Nature has done an amazing job of this, but we  are not after the same 
goals as her. Typical natural forestry suggests that a 3  layer canopy is most 
efficent in biomass productive environments. As we push  into less 
productive land, that will be different in both directions. .  What each layer 
consists of for any given set of environmental conditions is has  wide 
increasingly complex variables. Someday 100 years from now, a computer  program will be 
crunching in whatever is the Cray Super Computer of that age. It  will tell 
the then modern forester what works best- maybe. Then, only  experiments to 
compare the real time data to to the computer model will fine  tune the 
long term plan. 
    Modern complex forestry computer programs mostly  focus on select 
harvest models. Computer planting programs just use current  harvest data to 
optimise plantation - type management.  How do you get data  on trees that take 
300 years or more to be fully mature?  Recent studies  suggest that 1000 
year old Redwoods are still increasing in biomass production  over younger 
trees. Got 1000 years to collect data?? Maybe we should be breeding  many trees 
to grow 1000 years. 
    If we make half the progress growing trees that we  have made in a 
typical productive vegetable garden in 4000 or more years, you  can throw out 
the predictions for production numbers. New numbers may be easily  a power of 
ten more productive. Just look what small changes have brought us.  When you 
consider the efficiency of photosynthisis to convert sunlight into  
chemical energy, that number theoreticlly can go two powers of ten or more. Not  
only do we need to first optimise growing technique, but then optimise 
breeding,  and back to growing technique and so fourth. 
    I don't even want to consider pandoras box  of geneticly modified 
plants. I think outer space is the best place to  release them so they don't 
contaminate our biosphere like GM corn has. I  considered that thought over 20 
years ago and it merged with my childhood  idea of growing trees on the moon 
and on orbit.  That is why I've wanted to  merge a greenhouse with a 
blacksmith shop. It's how space homesteads will do it.  I discussed this issue at a 
hydroponics conference in the early 1990's and  everybodys eyes rolled, so 
I just went out and worked on it with what I had.  Nobody came to collect 
the amazing data I saw everyday for twenty  years. A few years ago, my 
greenhouse was forced to close and my finacial  situation has nearly halted all my 
research. I hope to slowly get back in the  game if I don't loose my new 5 
acre farm. It is Gods gift to me for my study.  Most of the assets of this 
land are hidden and only of use to me. 
    Most of the forests today are being primarlily  managed for lumber of 
some type. Hunting wildlife is about the only large  second crop. Small 
private lands and prototype corporate plantations are where  the experiments are 
being done. When we start to combine orchard and vegetable  production with 
forestry, the sky is the limit. I take that back, how far has  the Big Bang 
blown things open today? That is the limit. And this is how we will  get out 
there if we do, over a billion years of future evolution and space  travel. 
Call me crazy, but I saw a powerful vision as a child that told me this.  
You just keep moving the decimal point on the equation. Carl Sagan must have  
seen a vision like mine, and so I supported his work long ago. Most thought 
he  was craazy too. Thanks Carl. 
    I have been blessed to spend a little time with one  of the greatest 
foresters of our generation. John Guthrie of Wiggins Mississippi  fame. My 
crash course in Southern USA forestry, shortly after Hurricane Katrina,  taught 
me the following: The closer we get to understanding the original native  
environment, the better we can merge our needs to the use of the land given 
to  us. 
    John would be first to tell you that if only a  higher power can make a 
tree, who are we to decide how and where to grow it?  That has led him to 
push the reintroduction of missing native tree species which  have been 
eliminated one at a time. Grown in plantations to examine and  focuse on each, 
longleaf pine is a good example. It was like the White Oak tree,  the king of 
the forest, until it was logged nearly to extinction. Currently,  burning of 
undergrowth is done like the Natives did for management in early  stage 
plantations. Timing is everything. We had lively conversation about  grazing 
and/ or underplanting of numerous shrub species to reduce this practice.  I 
think I opened up his mind by the smile on his face. Some private plantations  
were doing this on a very basic experimental level in 2006. 
    The forest plot I was camped in, had longleaf pine  being interplanted 
where select thining was being done to young Southern Yellow  Pine, It was 
John"s land right behind the International Paper plant, so I think  it was a 
prototype. The thinnings were going mostly to chip and saw for OSB and  
other products. The small thinings were hauled at harvest cost for pulp. Katrina 
 opened it up more - as if God were saying to John " you got the idea boy, 
now go  with it and I'll help yu". 
    Dr. Michler I belive is his name, discussed  his work at Purdue U. with 
me about 10 years ago. At the time he was pioneering  in the selecting of 3 
hardwood species: Red  Oak, Black Cherry, and Walnut.  An Indiana nursery 
was selling the products of tissue culture of the best  selected species. 
Breeding of hardwoods was still in it's infancy. The new  science then was 
using gene mapping to select known genes to assist breeding of  trees which were 
only starting to bear fruit. That is very exciting -more  productive and 
safe than GM plants. I called because I wanted to know if  anybody had studied 
growing trees to make charcoal fuel and he wondered what  for.....  
    Kevin, I would like to add to your bucket list a  huge compounding 
factor number 7.  What happens when we do all of the  above, yet look at 
secondary and multiple layers of recycling of plants. For a  great example you and 
I may have discussed the fact that Charcoal production for  an industrial 
fuel may be the best utimate landfill killer. Demolition waste  must be the 
largest growing filler of landfills. I have done limited research  into which 
trees produce the best metallurgical charcoal. What happens when we  breed 
trees for example, to both build houses, then reuse the wood to fuel a  blast 
furnace to make the finest iron ever made?. The two uses are very  
compatible. Just so happens that some of the strongest hardwoods as well as pine  
species make real clean charcoal. The hardwoods make the most dense charcoal 
by  nature. We can also infuse charcoal with additional hydrocarbons in the  
conversion process, with net energy production. If we grow walnut trees for  
example, we can produce food and many chemicals too at no additional cost. 
    Nearly every organic chemical can be coaxed from  living material.  
Don't even get me started on the chemical  refinery/production avenue. I've 
said enough. I cannot do much more or take time  to record what I've found  out 
or can find out without a break in life  somewhere. That is why I don't 
contribute much anymore to these lists. It gets  me all excited, and then 
frustration sets in. I have 3 kids to raise and cannot  waste my time playing 
with the future of mankind when I need food stamps. 
    Enough said. 
 
 
    Ok , do I have anybodies attention now???  
    I have to get off the computer so my Son can do his  homework,  Sorry, 
no time for editing or additional info tonight. 
    
    Dan Dimiduk 
    Shangri- La Research. 
 
 
In a message dated 11/13/2013 7:41:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
kchisholm at ca.inter.net writes:

Dear RB
 
OK.... as discouraging as the facts may be, the facts  are reality, and 
they must be dealt with to avoid future  problems.
1: Can different species be grown, that have higher Mean  Annual Increments 
of growth?
2: Can the woodlots be managed better?
3: Can cooking practises be changed?
4: Would more efficient stoves help  significantly?
5: Can other forms of fuel, or other sources of  energy, be used to take 
some of the pressure off the  woodlots?
6: Would some form of "Agroforestry" be possible, to put  the land to a 
higher use, with multi-cropping?
...etc...
 
Most people like to do things the way they have always  been done. They 
can't expect different results if they do things the same way  they have always 
done things in the past. The cruel facts are that if they  want different 
results, then they will have to find changes that are  acceptable to them, OR 
choose to live with the consequences of their present  practises. Those 
seem to be the cruel realities.
 
Best wishes,
 
Kevin
 



 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20131113/2a0d9ecc/attachment.html>