[Terrapreta] Amazon cattle ranging

[lou gold]

Hi Max,

There probably is some confusion of terminologies going on here but I have
to say that I have never heard a definition of selective logging such as the
one you propose:

In commercial logging language, "selective" logging means taking *all* the
trees of value, and leaving the rest.

My direct on-the-ground experience with "selective" or "selection" logging
is from the temperate forest where I know that it can be used creatively.
The management of the tribal forest of the Menominee in Wisconsin is an
excellent case in point.
http://www.mtewood.com/menominee_forest_background.htm

Surely there are better ways being introduced into Amazonia under the broad
agro-forestry movement which is full of innovation, creativity and
ecological sensitivity. These more eco-appropriate approaches tend to be
concentrated in already fragmented and developed areas. But it's not really
the case at the frontier where openning previously unroaded areas leads
typically to a host of problems.





On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 6:03 PM, MFH <mfh01 at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>  Dear Lou
>
>
>
> Yes it is, and I have proven it.
>
>
>
> However, there is probably some confusion in terms here.
>
>
>
> The author of the article you list is comparing "selective" logging to
> clear-felling. In commercial logging language, "selective" logging means
> taking *all* the trees of value, and leaving the rest. In PNG lowland
> forest, with a great diversity of species, that means felling maybe 25
> trees/ha. In more uniform *dipterocarp* forests in Borneo or Sabah, it
> means taking 90% of the trees.
>
>
>
> He's correct in stating that the damage is horrific – untrained chainsaw
> operators, trees felled in directions that maximise damage to younger stock,
> untrained bulldozer operators who get to the base of every fallen tree
> rather than snig with the winch, collateral damage caused by dragging felled
> trees willy-nilly to the truck site, roads built without drains and
> culverts, creeks dammed with logs and soil as crossings.
>
>
>
> A study in PNG by Tom Vigus illustrated the extent of the damage from
> "selective" logging:
>
>
>
> a) over 85% of remaining trees over 10cm (4") diameter had been damaged and
>
> b) these continued to die for up to 10 years after the logging
>
>
>
> I have no argument with your author's list of results and damage, but
> 'selective' logging is standard tropical logging practice and very different
> to what I suggest as a 1/40th volume per ha removal per annum.
>
>
>
> The latter also assumes using portable sawmills at the fell site, and
> buffalo carts to extract the sawn timber.
>
>
>
> Hope that this clarifies,
>
>
>
> Max
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* lou gold [mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 22 May 2008 4:16 AM
> *To:* MFH
> *Cc:* Nikolaus Foidl; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Amazon cattle ranging
>
>
>
> Hi Max,
>
> I'm afraid that what you say is not true.
>
> *If, for example, 1/40th of the tree volume per hectare of a tropical
> forest is extracted annually, there will not be any noticeable degradation.
> *
>
> The following is from Mongabay at:
> http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0807.htm
>
> Even without clear-cutting, the construction of logging roads to reach
> forest resources is destructive in the its own right and encourages
> settlement of previously inaccessible forest lands by speculators, land
> developers, and poor farmers. Studies by the Environmental Defense Fund show
> that areas that have been selectively logged are eight times more likely to
> be settled and cleared by shifting cultivators than untouched rainforests
> because of the access granted by logging roads. Research has found a high
> correlation between the presence of logging roads and consumption of
> "bushmeat"—wild animals hunted as food.
>
> Logging roads aside, selective logging itself—where only one or two valuable
> tree species <http://rainforests.mongabay.com/08mahogany.htm> are
> harvested from an area—can take a heavy toll on primary tropical forests. A
> late 2005 study conducted by scientists from the Carnegie Institution<http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1101-logging_amazon.html>at Stanford University determined that "selective logging" creates twice as
> much damage as is detected by satellites while resulting in 25 percent more
> greenhouse gas emissions than previously believed.
>
> Selective logging—as usually practiced—is degrading to the forest because
> the felling of a single large tree can bring down dozens of surrounding
> trees which are connected to the target tree by vines and lianas. The
> thinning of the protective canopy exposes the forest to increased sunlight
> and drying winds that can kill symbiotic soil organisms essential for
> decomposition and nutrient-fixing, while drying leaf litter and increasing
> the forest's vulnerability to fire. Further, the use of tractors for
> removing trees tears up the soil and increases erosion. Selective logging
> has been found to reduce global biodiversity by destroying habitat for
> primary forest species.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:39 AM, MFH <mfh01 at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> Lou, as you say, there is much sense in the wise extraction of forest
> products. Trees don't live forever – they get old and die, are killed by
> lightning strikes, by insect damage and disease. The forest constantly
> recycles and renews.
>
>
>
> If, for example, 1/40th of the tree volume per hectare of a tropical
> forest is extracted annually, there will not be any noticeable degradation.
> Economics have something to do with the promotion of this as a system.
> Generally, the owners of the forests and the trees receive a pittance for
> the "stump" prices. One of our aims in PNG was to demonstrate to the
> landowners that the trees in their forests were akin to a bank account.
> Protect the capital, make a modest withdrawal from time to time, and this
> would be balanced by the new growth (interest). At that stage they were
> receiving $3/c.m. stumpage when the logger was getting $150/c.m. fob for
> round logs. One of the aims of providing small portable sawmills was to
> demonstrate the value difference. For a 5 c.m. log they could get as much as
> $250 for the sawn timber versus $15 as a round log. This reinforced the
> value of the trees and the value of the forest, and led to many landowner
> groups refusing to deal with loggers.
>
>
>
> I'm aware of the results of some of these projects some 15 years after
> commencement, and in the best of these the diversity and the vigour of the
> forest has been maintained. In some areas a comparison can be made to an
> adjacent block that has been industrially logged. From the air after 15
> years both areas look similarly vigorous, but on the ground the logged area
> is a mess of vines, creepers and (often exotic, i.e. foreign) pioneer
> species which have no commercial value. A reasonable estimate is that it
> will take 100 years for the area to return to the sort of species mix that
> existed prior to logging.
>
>
>
> So another approach is to work towards a wider realisation that trees are
> more valuable than the miserable royalties paid, and that forests have many
> additional economic values. Maybe this means that timber is too cheap –
> absolutely. Woodchip sells for a miserly few dollars/tonne at source.
>
>
>
> This can be looked at from many angles, e.g., how many people can live off
> a hectare of "managed" tropical forest, as compared to (a) how many can live
> off a hectare of 'slash and burn' agriculture after the 3rd year, or (b)
> how many from a cash crop such as cocoa or coffee. The assumption in the
> first instance would be limited timber extraction plus a range of non-timber
> forest products (fruits, nuts, shelter materials). Any of the calculations I
> did showed that the forest had more annual income value when left in place
> and managed.
>
>
>
> Max H
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org [mailto:
> terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] *On Behalf Of *lou gold
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 21 May 2008 1:08 PM
> *To:* Nikolaus Foidl
> *Cc:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Amazon cattle ranging
>
>
>
> Oh boy Folke, since David Yarrow and I seem to be the tree-huggers who
> regularly contribute to this forum I can't help but think that your lecture
> is being delivered at least in part to me. So let me take the time to
> correct some of your statements that simply seem off-the-mark to me.
>
> *I know, everybody loves trees and it is a gut feeling for everybody that
> cutting trees is bad. *
>
>
> I don't know who the "everyone" is that you are refering to but it
> definitely does not include me. I am not against cutting trees and I am not
> against the logging industry. The problem is that somehow you really don't
> seem to see the forest for the trees.
>
> In fact, one can take a long term view of the earth's vegetative cover and
> see a ceaseless war between forestland and grassland. . The territory
> controlled by these two great vegetative kingdoms has shifted back and for
> across the earth many times due mostly to changing climatic conditions.
>
> In general, human beings have been soldiers in the army of the grasslands
> using all the weapons of "civilization" and "domestication" to achieve
> victory over the forest. In general, BUT NOT ALWAYS. Apparently, one of the
> great exceptions is to be found among -- you guessed it -- the Indios de
> Terra Preta -- who are thought to have had millions of people living in the
> central Amazon basin without ceaseless deforestation.
> *
> Deforestation sounds like a catastrophic event.
>
> *Well, some times it is and some times it is not*.* It is when it triggers
> climate change. Human deforestation created the climate shifts that resulted
> in the Sahara desert, making it uninhabitable by most plants and critters. A
> shift like that is catastrophic. When deforestation starts to trigger
> regional climate change we might prefer to keep a lot of the forest
> standing.
>
> *A grown established forest has neutral balance of fixation and loss, if
> the forest gets too old the danger of loosing all the stored biomass with a
> big scale fire is imminent and very often.*
>
> This is not true for the central Amazon basin where fire has historically
> been extremely rare due to heavy rainfall. And where does the rainfall come
> from? It comes from the transpiration of the trees in the forest. Without
> the forest, the climate shifts to drought as has already been ocurring in
> the Eastern Amazon. And drought triggers more fire, etc, etc in a positive
> feedback loop that can alter both regional and global climate in
> catastrophic ways.
>
> With all due respects for the important work that you are doing in Bolivia
> -- and the creative stewardship for both conservation and food production
> that it represents -- I've got to say that the lowland basin of the Eastern
> Amazon presents a radically different situation. Here is what Dan Nepstad
> from Woods Hole says about it:
>
> *Mongabay: **In Bali you also put out some rather dire projections for the
> Amazon in 2030. Could you elaborate on this?
>
> **Nepstad:* There are all these models (namely the Hadley model) pointing
> to the end of the century when there will be a big forest die-back in the
> Amazon. But before global warming is going to kick in there is going to be
> all sorts of damage from the droughts we are already seeing as well as
> deforestation, logging, and the fires that are part of that regime. To
> factor in these effects, we took our deforestation model, our logging model,
> and what we know about the effect of drought on tree mortality, and
> projected out the year 2030 using current climate patterns — the last 10
> years repeated into the future. We found that by the year 2030, 55 percent
> of the forest will be either cleared or damaged — I think 31 percent cleared
> and 24 percent damaged by either logging or drought, with a large portion of
> that damaged forest catching fire. This produces a huge amount of emissions.
> We're looking at 16-25 billion tons of carbon going into the atmosphere in a
> very short time frame -- the next 22 years. The scary thing is some of these
> assumptions are quite conservative.
> http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0124-nepstad.html
>
> *We have to see that this planet is the only one and until we do not have
> an alternative to agricultural food production we cannot save all the trees
> in this world.*
>
> In what possible scenario do you imagine that anyone seriously involved in
> these issues is trying to "save all the trees in the world"?
> OK, I'm glad to think about how we can be most creativily involved in earth
> changes INCLUDING DEFORESTATION but let's not clutter the discussion with
> assertions that simply are not true.
>
> Touch the earth and blessed be.
>
> lou
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://lougold.blogspot.com
> http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
> http://youtube.com/my_videos
>



-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com
http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
http://youtube.com/my_videos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080521/79720ee0/attachment.html