next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
dioxid --001a113e8f4278506f05285c1e43 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear All...here I go deep into the wormhole but come back out to what started this thread..Nova Scotian forests and biomass That charcoal was robbing England of its forest in the 18th Century was general knowledge when I grew up but it was undermined by Hammersley (The Charcoal Industry and its Fuel 1540-1750, in Economic History Review 26: 593-613) and Hamersley's account is now taken into to Wiki as general knowledge. The Hammersley paper is rigorous and it show that as David said, coppicing was a main method and at any one time, there was twice as much coppiced land as the total wood requirement of the industry (22,000 acres wood..the industry pulled ca 60 million cubic feet wood /yr). While that might only provide two years of wood, the crown land portion of England could in Hammersely's analysis cover all the needs of the industry for ever. The crown land in this case was a fraction of the total forested land avaliable. The argument that Darby's invention was needed to bail a wood starved industry out is not tenable Hammersley writes and Darby's invention made a more efficient process, no woods work and wood hauling, and a better formed product from coal coke. But..England has among the lowest forested cover in Europe and that in part sustained that former argument that its industry was responsible. (Hammersley first page). I read over Hoskins, The Making of the English Landscape 1955 Pelican, and the whole history of forest loss is in here and not so curiously now, there is no reference to charcoal. He outlines towns and their enlargement, farming, mining, early enclosures around forest areas near villages..Devon hedges were made using 4 foot wide trench by 4 foot wide thrown up into hedge and planted with hawthorne and these treed areas near villages would be converted to field for grazing etc..open field system of grazed land with common areas, enclosure of that...water mills and canals making new settlements where there was water, finally steam power and the industrial revolution took industry to original towns near coal where the village would be redeveloped, so that the wet areas previously unfavoured for settlement would have a canal dug, factories established and workers housing established in former wetland areas. These were called slums he says after "slams" , a low German/Swedish word meaning wet mire (passing through "slump" then to slum). Wormholes Back to the issue at hand: Our present use of forests in NS needs a better plan to preserve our natural history and we need a plan that takes into account that our forest soils have a naturally low calcium concentration,and that soil calcium levels have been reduced by acidification which is ongoing albeit at lower rates, that our forestry is taking calcium out of the landscape as bark and branches leaves the sites, and that we face a climatic shift which should usher in a diversity of the Appalachian Deciduous Forest species but this biodiversity shift may not take place in NS if our soils are unfit for species that come from higher calcium ecosystems. We need to look at our forested floodplains for here are the calcium conditions that can sustain the Appalachian Forest. These can be the starting nuclei for this communty and then good stewardship can enlarge these areas so they coalesce into migration pathways. And to Jamie's point that overall, a biomass burning based forestry is going to degrade all our forest types and that the lowest calcium forests along the Atlantic shore..the meguma terrane..will be walloped by any short rotation foreestry and will in some areas transform forest into a savannah in a matrix of ericaeous scrub. Nick , On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 8:03 PM, David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com> wrote: > Hi Nick & All, Jan 1, 2016 > The idea that---"England....was charcoaling most of its forests." for > the reduction of iron and the use of coke prevented widespread > deforestation is a widespread myth but is at variance with the facts. > The large ironworks which developed for volume production, e.g. > casting of large cannon were not at all portable so they had to rely on > nearby forests and take care to not deplete them, as outlined below > From: http://www.ukagriculture.com/countryside/charcoal_history.cfm > > "Although historians have often considered that the excessive felling of > timber to fuel the iron industries resulted in woodland loss, it is now > recognised that this theory is wholly incorrect. The iron industry was long > term in nature and iron works jealously guarded their supplies. > Furthermore, most of the timber used in the charcoal kiln was of coppice > origin. Coppice material was of regular size, was easy to handle and load > and required minimal recutting. Woods close to the iron works survived > because their place as fuel providers to the iron industry raised their > economic importance and prevented their loss to agriculture as happened > elsewhere." > > The above is in substantial agreement with information from Edlin > which I posted a while ago; it being-- > > As covered in some detail in Trees, Woods and Man, H.L.Edlin, 1956, > 272 > pp. most deforestation was a gradual consequence of other practices such > as > mowing natural hay or bedding in relatively open woodland and the teeth of > domesticated animals which killed any regeneration. Without regeneration > the > forest gradually died out. This information is scattered & I will not > attempt to dig it out. > But can quote from the passage which relates to charcoal (p. 88) "Vast > quantities of wood were consumed for charcoal. to "reduce" the iron ores > to > metal before the use of coke was understood (Straker, 1931). But it was > cut > from coppices of broadleaved trees, which sent up fresh shoots from their > stumps within a year of being felled; and these coppices were managed by > men > who knew the elements of rotational cutting. So today in the very region > where devastation might otherwise have been greatest, we find the only > large > portion of England with an outstandingly high proportion of woodland; in > the > five south-eastern counties of Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Berkshire, and > Hampshire 14.6 per cent of the land as against 5.8 per cent for England as > a > whole." > > Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Nicholas Hill <fernhillns@gmail.com> > *To:* naturens@chebucto.ns.ca > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 23, 2015 4:32 PM > *Subject:* Re: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry > > A friend recently accused me of being "gnomic", and ill-educated lout as i > am, i took issue at being called a gnome, but moving int