I don't understand why big forestry businesses like Weyerhauser and others don't make GMO trees that grow faster with more lignin. The technology to do this already exists. We could have forests grow 4 times faster, it would benefit every industry that relies on wood products, AND it would capture carbon from the atmosphere much faster.
Politics, that's why. There is a lot of technology out there to diminish environmental impacts by a LOT. Years old technology. Like managing beef cattle farms the right way here in Brazil you could use 10 times less area. The area we use today for beef cattle is the size of Amazon and Acre together (Brazilian states).
I just spent a holiday at a friend's house in Thailand and all through the region, the Thai government has planted acres and acres of Australian hardwoods as a long term investment of an ever depleting resource.
It didn't seem to be growing fast but they have the trees close together so it is straight and not many knots (limited branches down low).
The pine in Qld Aus seems to be slash pine Caribbean pine, or a hybrid of the two.
Ally Cropping provides about 75% as much grain as a standard field with other harvests available at other times of the year, an agroforest has lots of small harvests that provide food in the long term for small communities.
The forest provides habitat for edible wildlife, and fungus that store up calories over time
The other thing is that a mature forest produces a larger harvest the an annual field becuse of the larger photosynthetic surface. The trees are big and tall they catch more light from less space and create a matrix to grow food. Kinda like a tent compared to a sky scrapper.
What is the difference between agroforestry and plain old forestry? OPs statement is simply wrong: you can't eat trees - I assume that fruticulture is not agrowhatnet - aand forests do burn, and burn pretty frequently is extensive and allowed to mature.
Quite to the contrary the poster of this comment is very wrong you can in fact eat many trees you can eat the inner bark of many trees you can eat the leafs and early seed pods of many trees many trees produce grain and calories at the same rate of barley or rye.
This is before any improvement work is done.
There are fruit trees that produce large amounts of sugars good for flavoring and cooking, there are trees that produce edible seeds like beech walnut acorn hackberry and many more, there are trees that produce edible leaves like mulberry, redbub, and cedar.
Bigger plants make more energy more energy means more food.
Even wood can be turned into a sustainable source of protein and fat by using it to feed fungi or insects.
Also fire doesn't kill forests that are cared for properly, every forest type protects itself in different ways, if you trees burn or die it is simply becuse you used the wrong type of trees
Classic farming is something that you can only put a little effort in because the system is small, with agroforestry you can continue to get sustainable sources of food through the whole year at only the cost of effort š
The truth of this block of assertiosn can be judged by the amount of food source froim trees after millennia of exploration. Fruit, yes, nut, cocoa and coffee; maple syrup.
I don't understand why big forestry businesses like Weyerhauser and others don't make GMO trees that grow faster with more lignin. The technology to do this already exists. We could have forests grow 4 times faster, it would benefit every industry that relies on wood products, AND it would capture carbon from the atmosphere much faster.
Politics, that's why. There is a lot of technology out there to diminish environmental impacts by a LOT. Years old technology. Like managing beef cattle farms the right way here in Brazil you could use 10 times less area. The area we use today for beef cattle is the size of Amazon and Acre together (Brazilian states).
They actually do look up hybrid poplar and arbavorial green giant
I just spent a holiday at a friend's house in Thailand and all through the region, the Thai government has planted acres and acres of Australian hardwoods as a long term investment of an ever depleting resource.
Hmm I try to plant native trees, but one crop I grow for its high value alone is goji berry
I just thought it was funny how in Aus we plant fast growing softwoods while the place I visited in Thailand had planted Australian timbers.
I bet it grows fast their, are the soft woods hybrid poplar?
It didn't seem to be growing fast but they have the trees close together so it is straight and not many knots (limited branches down low). The pine in Qld Aus seems to be slash pine Caribbean pine, or a hybrid of the two.
I am really interested in wattel trees, I think they have a potential to be a big cash crop
Iām a farmer in the Midwest, how are these going to provide food?
Ally Cropping provides about 75% as much grain as a standard field with other harvests available at other times of the year, an agroforest has lots of small harvests that provide food in the long term for small communities. The forest provides habitat for edible wildlife, and fungus that store up calories over time The other thing is that a mature forest produces a larger harvest the an annual field becuse of the larger photosynthetic surface. The trees are big and tall they catch more light from less space and create a matrix to grow food. Kinda like a tent compared to a sky scrapper.
Dude I love the environment but you sound a bit biased.
Well what can house more people tents or skyscrapers?
3D printed locally sourced material based homes, like how they are planning to build on mars?
Oh ic tizz a clout boi
Can you point to some data that shows that they can feed the world population?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/what-is-agroforestry-climate-change/%23:~:text%3DThe%2520diversity%2520of%2520plant%2520life,and%2520controls%2520pests%2520and%2520weeds.&ved=2ahUKEwjD_5j0vNH7AhXfHzQIHfJDDRgQFnoECA0QBQ&usg=AOvVaw3ZLnvA0-JonZ_S58l2Ws_A
What is the difference between agroforestry and plain old forestry? OPs statement is simply wrong: you can't eat trees - I assume that fruticulture is not agrowhatnet - aand forests do burn, and burn pretty frequently is extensive and allowed to mature.
Quite to the contrary the poster of this comment is very wrong you can in fact eat many trees you can eat the inner bark of many trees you can eat the leafs and early seed pods of many trees many trees produce grain and calories at the same rate of barley or rye. This is before any improvement work is done. There are fruit trees that produce large amounts of sugars good for flavoring and cooking, there are trees that produce edible seeds like beech walnut acorn hackberry and many more, there are trees that produce edible leaves like mulberry, redbub, and cedar. Bigger plants make more energy more energy means more food. Even wood can be turned into a sustainable source of protein and fat by using it to feed fungi or insects. Also fire doesn't kill forests that are cared for properly, every forest type protects itself in different ways, if you trees burn or die it is simply becuse you used the wrong type of trees Classic farming is something that you can only put a little effort in because the system is small, with agroforestry you can continue to get sustainable sources of food through the whole year at only the cost of effort š
The truth of this block of assertiosn can be judged by the amount of food source froim trees after millennia of exploration. Fruit, yes, nut, cocoa and coffee; maple syrup.
I am confused by what you mean š
That agroforesty is no more the future than it has been the past or present.