Tampering with Trees

Yes please

" technology developers are relying on a controversial gene splice that restricts trees' ability to reproduce"

Does anyone remember the movie, Jurassic park? Sounds eerily familiar.

Restricting the trees' ability to reproduce may not be enough:

http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-02-23.74.1

Mark Bingham
Relativity PL

You'd think, with all of the Brazillian Pepper trees we have in the south east, that we would have learned our lession about importing fast growing non-native trees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_pepper

What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu ?

Yeah, just what we need....get rid of the natural growing stuff and replace it with stuff that can't reproduce. Eventually we will end up with barren wasteland.

With Koala Bears!

Sorry mate but they are not bears. They have to bear this mistake that many people make, that's all.

Any thing that reminds me of Monsanto is to be treated with care. Mono cultures bring more problems than they bring good otherwise nature would have not have "Darwinized" as it has. Shame on the greedy people that need to enslave nature to make a profit. You wait, they will even try and get a patent on these perverted ideas of ruling nature, if they have not already done so.

BTW I have seen them explode mid air in bush fires because they are filled with this lovely smelling fuel. Very volatile crop, I can tell you, Ky.

Please do yourselves a favor & watch on youtube; The World According To Monsanto. It is a multi part video & it can shock or inform you as to what the US has been allowing to happen & the world will regret terribly one day if it is allowed to continue...

Yeah, Brazilian pepper trees. Let us not forget Kudzu. Oh yeah! Before I close - - can we mention anacondas and pythons in the Everglades, Nutrias in Louisanna and fire ants over most of the South Eastern US?

Only if the grey squirrel can be mentioned in the UK...

Well, in our defence. I don't think that purposefully set out to import fire ants. They probably just kind of stowed away on an agricultural shipment. At least that's what I've read.

Add Asian Carp to your list.

They will never learn. All they (corporations and politicians) care about is fast money. Palm trees and properly managed bamboo would be better alternatives. Bamboo can be blocked by concrete or plastic barriers in the ground to prevent it from spreading outside of the farmed area.

Isn't bamboo spread by seed & rhizome & what about the endangered alligator that is a fast runner, outrunning man & it survives without protection.

How often they flower depends on the species of bamboo. Most bamboo suitable as lumber has a 30 - 120 yr flowering cycle in a wild clump. The entire clump flowers at the same time and then dies. Bamboo creates a fruit type seed that could only be transported by an animal. The wiki on bamboo is a very good source of info. It would not be difficult to engineer controls to prevent the seeds from escaping the property although it would require some work. Bamboo is usually harvested between every 5 - 7 years. I couldn't find if harvesting changes the flowering cycle.

I can remember kudzu(pueraria lobata) when it was grown along with sericia lespadeza to help control erosion. Kudzu can only be controlled mechanically & it is best spread by crown transplant. Remember mechanical means can prevent spreading, but if you forget then it is out of control. Otherwise it is a great legume for livestock.

I'm not familiar with the properties of eucalyptus, but I have read that coconut palm is a native species that is underutilized. It is fast growing, produces healthy fruit and milk, and when it stops producing fruit, can be lumbered to produce excellent wood. Some consider the palm tree to be the bamboo of the 21st century.

I am aware of two varieties of eucalyptus types in Ecuador. One is used for tea & the other is used as an insect repellant, but the two are hardly interchangable.

Coconut makes lousy timber. The trunk is like a bunch of string.

There are hundreds of Eucalypts some such as jarrah have some of the finest timber around. Jarrah is durable. Most Eucalypts are relatively slow growing which is why pine trees were planted in Australia displacing native forests.

Pinus radiata grows well in Australia because it doesn't have it's normal pests to control it.

In addition the spacing of trees can be closer than with eucalypts.

Eucalypts grow faster but the timber is not as straight so the sawn yield is not as good.

Combined with the higher density planting pines give more usable timber per acre, but take longer to harvest.

Pines acidify the soil by their needles and kill off all competition. Looks horrible compared to a eucalypt forest, but means they need little maintenance.

In addition eucalypt leaves are loaded with volatile oil which makes them a fire hazard. Pines have resin which burns well but doesn't form an explosive gas mixture with air and is harder to ignite.

These are some of the reasons pines are often planted in place of eucalypts in Australia. In their native land they don't grow as fast and are less productive.

The did say it was going to revolutionize the timber industry.......anyway, wasn't the pine plantations created there in the first place because of its faster growth compared to the northern climates

I may be wrong but I thought I read somewhere that the eucalyptus produces a somewhat toxic gas.

Dunno about toxic gas but I can say that the dang things STINK. I wouldn't want to be anywhere around a whole stand of the things.

Hooker

So could we call this Whoreticulture?

I am allergic to eucalyptus. I already can't go to most of California. Of course that is no big deal to me but I do enjoy the southeast part of the country and have lots of friends there. I really think this is a stupid idea. Greed should not be the reason things are done.

Let us be realistic about "invasive" species- any species that expands by whatever means to a new environment. We have to include cows, apples, wheat, corn, barley, horses, dogs, cats, soy, hemp, marijuana, opium poppies...I don't think I will live long enough to finish this list...But we can top the list with the most invasive species of all- humans. If we want to fix the problem of invasive species, box up all the existing humans on the planet and send them back to Africa where they came from...

Or we could recognize that a species naturally wants to expand its environment, and will use whatever means is available- even if it means relying on an assist by another species (say, for instance, a bird dropping a seed in the next valley...)

Aren't invasive species somewhat designated as those species which self propagate virulently. Do not respond well or at all to natural deterrents. Or those which tend to choke out all other species to the point of degradation or exhaustion of natural recourses, even to the point of self ratification. Whereas cows are a domesticated live stock spend there entire lives in stockyards or farms ( not running around loose everywhere) and respond well to population control (harvesting / culling). I would hardly call them an invasive species. However many of the above mentioned species are as they are difficult at best to control as well as eradicate when they "invade" your back yard.

More on the subject. Am I wrong or is isn't it the eucalyptus that poisons the ground beneath it so that nothing else can grow there?

http://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/cd-keys/Euclid/sample/html/classification.htm

Just some basics, Ky.

I don't know about eucalyptus poisoning the ground, but I do know that teak poisons the ground.

Regarding invasive species, the point I was trying to make is that the definition of invasive species is rather arbitrary, and is generally defined to suit the need of whoever happens to be objecting to the invasion. The introduction of cows to new environments generally has a significant impact on the new environment. The fact that they are protected from natural enemies, disease and such by us humans significantly increases their impact on the original environment. The fact that they are a desirable invasive species does not mean they are not an invasive species. Same with humans, who tend to have an even more negative impact on original environments that they invade.

All species will expand their habitat, given the opportunity. With the possible exception of deep sea thermal vents, I know of no environment still inhabited by the original species. Species that expand into habitats where their natural enemies don't exist are going to over-populate, because their natural reproductive rate has evolved to replace individuals lost to natural enemies. Some intentional introductions, like kudzu in the Southeastern US or rabbits in Australia get out of hand, and then some people consider them undesirables. But they are just doing what all natural critters and plants are trying to do...

Do eucalyptus poison the ground? Not the natural eucalypts apparently, that is, the critical organisms for living soil do quite well. There are scads of mycorrhizal associations, including VAM on seedlings (the cultivated soil type) and ecto- types (big mushrooms), diversity compared favourably with pine. Doesn't sound like they pose any risk to the soil.

However, replacing normal trees (and mixed stands) with GMO sterile monoculture... it's the Monsanto ripoff plan again. Patents were never intended for this. Space for trees in our crowded world should be space for expression of the living genome, conservation of genetic diversity, and free evolution and reproduction of the species. The space occupied by a sterile GMO is space stolen from life, this should be very restricted if not banned.

Likwise of mind to monoculture as witnessed all over Ontario, BC and Que. Dead zones to wildlfe and, being cultivars of a, believe it or not, 'A Singular Tree', are readily infested with either insects or disease.

Imbecilic thinking that continues

Being the offspring of a single tree is not so unusual. All Navel oranges are grafted from a single mutant tree found in Brazil. BTW, Eucalyptus is useless for timber. Jack London brought a shipload of starts from OZ, thinking to make lumber. Turns out the stuff won't even make fenceposts; the nails/staples don't hold. Tall growing, shallow rooted, fast growing, and often planted for windbreaks. Roads get blocked every big windstorm.

Good point about the single offspring. Many fruit and nut tree farmers prefer these for gauging purposes. Grape growers are forever looking for the singular and perfect cultivar.

My wife is of the opinion that her 'pet' indoor eucalyptus is effective as a bug repellant. I happen to like the way it smells though have been told that prolonged exposure has a tendency to 'fry the brain'. Koalas come to mind.

BTW, Eucalyptus is useless for timber. Jack London brought a shipload of starts from OZ, thinking to make lumber. Turns out the stuff won't even make fence posts; the nails/staples don't hold. Tall growing, shallow rooted, fast growing, and often planted for windbreaks. Roads get blocked every big windstorm.

You will find a different view if you visit Australia where various eucalypts are used extensively.

Ironbark makes excellent and very long lasting fence posts.

Spotted gum is used for flooring, as are several other species.

Red stringy bark is used for power poles.

Jarrah is a prized cabinet timber.

The list goes on.

There are thousands of different eucalypts. Some, like snappy gum grows in semi desert and is probably useless as timber (good for firewood when camping). Many have use as timber.

Generally they fall into quite a high strength class - several grades higher than pine, redwood, douglas fir, oregon or the other North American species you would be used to.

Here most roof trusses are made using eucalyptus timber because of this high strength.

As far as blowing down in a windstorm is concerned, eucalypts have a long tap root and need a pretty serious storm to bring them down, although with some varieties branches can snap off.

When you see reports on them being brought down, you would find the same storm would create even more damage among the normal North American trees.

This is not my area and hope not to bore anyone with my lack of knowledge in this. I believe I understand in general what you mean about mono cultures But have no understanding of what GMO is. I understand that Monsanto is a corporation that provides genetically modified seeds,etc.. but have not found any reference to them ripping some one off. But then there is a lot of info on them online perhaps I just missed it.

I do agree with your thoughts that genetically modified and sterile foods / seeds. should be seriously restricted or banned. From both an ethical and political perspective.

As far as eucalyptus being inferior as a lumber product as compared to more common species (as mentioned some where else) I would have no idea. I've never worked with it as lumber. I suspect it would also depend on the desired end product, ie. lumber v.s. paper.

For those of you with "moral" or "ethical" objections to genetic engineering, I would like to point out that the first historical record of genetic engineering appears in Genesis, in the Chistian Bible, which I believe is primarily derived from the Hebrew text of the same name, and generally accepted as sacred writing in the Muslim world as well (unfortunately, I do not have access to the traditional sources of moral or ethical authority for other Religious models). The story I am referring to is, of course, the story of Jacob and Rachel, and how Jacob used genetic engineering to build a flock of sheep of superior quality to that of his father-in-law, who provided the original source of genetic material with which Jacob worked. Jacob apparently accomplished this feat not only with the APPROVAL of the God of Abraham (the recognized moral authority of the day and the foundation on which many current belief systems are based), but, as claimed by the recorder of this particular event (at least in the various versions to which I have had direct access), actual instruction in the propper procedure direct from this highest moral authority.

For those readers who find the above brief a bit obscure, I offer the following translation into the popular vernacular:

GOD APPROVES OF HUMANS PRACTICING GENETIC ENGINEERING. For proof of this, READ YOUR BIBLE.

PS- monoculture is a different issue, and we need to call on a different authority for that discussion (specifically, George Washington Carver).

I am very disturbed by the fact that those opposed to "genetic engineering" ultimately fall back on the claim that it is "immoral" or "unethical" without citing a moral or ethical principle or authority on which this judgment is based. We could argue all day about where to draw the line between "selective breeding" and "genetic engineering", but at the end of the day, the results are the same- we interfere with natural reproductive processes in order to induce characteristics in the target species that we consider desirable. I do not presume to ascribe particular motives to Jacob's god, nor am I in a position to determine why this particular god chose to assist Jacob in this endeavor. What is obvious is that Jacob was granted access to the procedure, and Jacob's god did not find it necessary to hide the procedure from the general populace, allowing it to be incorporated into the sacred writings and available to all who can read. I am also not suggesting that Jacob's god is necessarily the same God that we all know and worship today (by whatever name we chose to use), but there is a clear historical link between Jacob's god and the Christian and Jewish Diety, Muslim Allah, and most likely Zarathushtra's diety, although I cannot confirm this last. This is about as close as I can personally come to a moral justification for messing with Mother Nature.

Genetic engineering, especially as being pursued by Monsanto, is not about creating Life, whatever that is. It is about modifying particular species to more closely conform to what some believe are ideal representations of those species. We do not even have a clear definition of what Life is, exactly. There are living organisms that have no DNA, and the world is full of little packets of DNA that can neither grow nor reproduce until they have invaded another species (we call these viruses). If you want to claim that Monsanto's efforts are immoral, then I challenge you to cite your source of moral or ethical principle.

Scientists are a long way away from creating Life from inanimate sources- even though there are probably many who would claim this as their ultimate goal. Cloning is not creating a living organism from whole cloth- one needs viable DNA extracted from a living cell, and one needs a viable germ cell (typically an egg cell) from which one has extracted the original genetic map. Without the living organisms to start from, you are not going to get very far. It also seems that, for higher animals such as sheep, one ultimately needs to avail onself of a fully developed uterus in order to realize a viable clone- science has not yet been able to come up with an artificial womb.

So, if we are going to consider the ethical or moral issues involved, let us first come up with an unabiguous definition of Life. Then let us establish the moral or ethical principle on which we judge whether God alone has the prerogative to create life. Then we can have a reasonable debate on this subject.

Now, on the other hand, it would probably be unethical for me personally to tinker with genetic engineering, because I do not have sufficient knowledge in the field, and I would probably waste a whole lot of resources with no hope of a successful outcome...

Moral or ethical principal.

To paraphrase Louis Armstrong; "If you have to ask, You'll never understand".

Unfortunately, crimich13, that is the sort of response that I would expect from a politician intent on pulling the wool over my eyes. That is the same thing as saying, "Trust me. My judgment is better than your judgment." You are telling me I have no right to know the basis of the judgment?

My reply was not meant as devious. Only that your missing the obvious.

You asked for a basis for standing on moral or ethical principal and then stepped into religion. The foundation of most ethics. Which you sort of contorted a bit to support your views and remove it from potential use as an arguing point. I think that if you re-read Genesis you'll see the part where God (Yahweh) creates the planet, seas, plants and all the little critters and calls them good. Meaning that in his eyes these things he created are as intended (aka perfect). They are the way HE chose them to be.

Then you said,"Genetic engineering, especially as being pursued by Monsanto, is not about creating Life, whatever that is. It is about modifying particular species to more closely conform to what some believe are ideal representations of those species."

So let me get this straight. So far. According to your philosophy, Gods initial concept is inferior in comparison to something created by man (especially Monsanto) that is sterile which some consider ideal so everyone else should also.

Now that sounds more like something I'd expect to hear from a politician who is trying to pull the wool over my eyes. Or a corporate shill or spin doctor trying to pedal their goods.

You are reading more into what i have stated than is actually there.

1. I have asked for an ethical principle on which a judgment is based. As an example, I offered one interpretation of a particular Biblical passage that can be used as an ethical justification for pursuing genetic engineering, considering the traditional writings as a good place to begin to look for ethical principles. I have also tried (and, apparently succedded) in pointing out that such guiding principles are open to interpretation.

2. I did not claim that man's attempt at improving on the natural order is necessarily beneficial- only that some people have criteria that they would consider an improvement on a naturally-occuring phenomenon- i.e., drought resistance, resistance to certain insect pests, etc. I did not intend to indicate that I consider this a viable view- only that there are such views that may have some validity, and should be given the same respect that religious views based on ancient writings is given.

3. I do not, nor have I ever intended to indicate that I, approve of the business practices of Monsanto or any other commercial entity. This is a separate subject.

I will state that I do not believe monoculture, whether it is involving the lumber business or food production, is a good idea, because it generally strips the land of nutrients and wears it out over time. This is not an ethical issue- it is a practical issue.

I don't know that I would go so far as to claim genetic engineering is immoral without looking into it further. I can certainly see how it could be used that way though.

As far as Monsanto goes.....I don't know that their genetic engineering is immoral, but from the bit I've read (which I admit isn't alot), the immoral/unethical things are more in regards to their business practices. I.E...they are taking a guy to court over the fact that some of their crop blew over to his field and thus think he should pay them for using their product. Hmmm doesn't sound proper to me. I realize there are two (or more) sides to every story, so maybe there's more to it.

Regarding Jacob and sheep....I don't think it's obvious from what I read that Jacob was granted access to a genetic modification procedure. He was given a dream, no? which indicated it would be beneficial to have the certain sheep/goats. His approach was actually incorrect (placing reeds in front of them when they mate). Whether it was God's hand making certain sheep mate or just God knowing which one's would mate is immaterial. God gave a command and Jacob followed it and reaped the benefits. It was not Jacob doing genetic engineering. Actually, I'm going mostly from memory and the quick read I did at the link I posted. I intend to read the scripture for myself soon and would also like to see what my father's take is on it. He is a theologian and I'm sure would have an opinion. I don't know that God encourages or approves or disapproves of mankind messing around at the genetic level. I believe what it says in the Bible that we were made in his image. I don't know exactly the extent of what that means. But one thing I think it means is that we are able to imagine and to create. He gave us intellect and the ability to make choices between right and wrong. I think he has given us the ability. He may be up there (or wherever) rooting for us....or hoping we don't go there. Maybe he was doing the same thing when we went nuclear (or nucular).

To me, the ethics or moral aspects have to do with creating something (genetically modified whatever) then mass marketing it as if it's totally safe. But how much testing has been done? I'm not saying it would be poison and kill someone right away. For instance, something as desirable as insect resistant. If get promotion of such foods and other plant life are converted over to being insect resistant, the insect die off....or are greatly reduced. Even though I'm not a bug lover, I do see there could be a down side. No insects mean that larger creatures would starve (frogs, spiders, birds), when those die off, even larger creatures would to.

Even though we have the knowledge to create (or modify) an organism, what are the long term consequences of those actions? Do we know? How cautious should we be? I don't just blame a large (or small) corporation....I also blame the society too for allowing the irresponsible actions.

I hope this post is coherent. It's 1:40 am in the morning and way past my bed time. I wanted to submit my response before hitting the sack. And now I'm really too tired to trust my proof reading.

I, too, am very suspicious of the ethics of certain business practices of the likes of Monsanto, but this is related to how they deal with their customers and the general public, dealings for which there are both identifiable ethical and legal standards (unfortunately, ethical and legal standards are not always compatible). I also agree that, as with any technology, there will be applications of genetic engineering that can be deemed immoral or unethical- but it is the application, not the technology, that is immoral. To issue a blanket morality ban on any activity without some basis in principle (whether I personally agree with the principle is immaterial) borders on totalitarianism. There are those in this world who would judge me as immoral because I allow my wife to appear in public not wearing a veil, independent of whether she wants to wear a veil or not. Next step, I may be required to pin a Star of David on my jacket, not because of the particular church I chose to attend, but because I allowed the wife out of the house without a veil...

If someone has serious moral or ethical objections to certain activities or pursuits, I will not presume to deny them their right to that opinion. However, if they want to force me to comply with their judgment, I at least expect a reasonable presentation of the principle on which the judgment is based. Those who fall back on the arguement that something is unethical without being able to cite a particular principle as the basis for that arguement are not being reasonable...

My opinion, my judgment, based on my interpretation of the core principles of the Judeo-Christian moral traditions as informed by Greek, French and American intellectual contributions...

Please pardon my injection of known information at this point. As I understand the introduction of Monsanto's GM corn into Mexico, the pollen from it has had a terrible effect upon the genetic variablility of the Mexican corn varieties. The poor mexican farmers made the mistake of planting the cheaper subsidized US GM corn seed because the mexican corn was more expensive. That was a terrible mistake.According to a federal court decision, "it is the existance of the GM crops in your field that establishes your guilt" & Monsanto is suing farmers in Canada & the US because the pollen is cross pollinating the pure strain crops that some farmers are & have been planting for many generations. They are having to pay damages & destroy all crop seed that they have & buy from Monsanto because of the suits.They are not allowed to state in public anything about what is happening. That is the power that they have over us.

There is no doubt in my mind that Monsanto employs very questionable business practices in their pursuit of a market monopoly. The most important damage they are doing, however, is that they are creating a really negative image that is seriously going to impact our ability to feed the world's growing population. The "cheaper" GM varieties happen to have higher yield, and are drought and disease resistant. Without these improvements, there are going to be a lot of starving people in this world. Monsanto should be stopped not because they are selling GM seeds, but because they are preventing others from coming up with a better solution...

Yes,Monsanto does abuse its business practice as it does buy its share of political influence many times over & now they employ many & spend a huge amount to protect itself from those who have wrongly been declared as violators of patents they own & Those who cannot prevent the GM pollen from attaching to their own pure strain seedstocks in the fields where thay have been grown for several generations. Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion about seed saving & he was a financial advisor for Monsanto before he was a supreme court justice. No conflict of interest there??? The GM varieties that you write are not as cheap as you think. Roundup ready crops seem to be affected by weeds that require more expensive herbicides once they become immune to roundup(approx.4 years)Roundup ready Legumes that adapt up to 50% of the nitrogen required from the air by using its special root system have shown that after using roundup the roots require more external nitrogen because of the herbicide use. Roundup ready Cotton, after the initial higher yields are now affected by an equal loss of plants attributed to the herbicide use. Where will the influence of Monsanto end. Do not be confused by what the news networks state about the shortage of food in the world as it is not true. The shortage of food is because there is little food for those who have no financial resources or political influence to achieve change for the benefit of the starving.

I hae gien you a GA for the passage: "Crop rotations with legumes are healthier crops that do not attract insects ... farmers have forgotten so much of the older practices ..."

Of course, many of the "older practices" have actually not been around that long, or that broadly practiced...Until very recently in history (i.e., the last couple of thousand years), people tended to over-work the land, then abandon it and move on to more fertile fields. In fact, this is still common practice in many parts of the world...George Washington Carver contributed greatly to the concept of crop rotation and the use of legumes to "condition" the soil...after the American Civil War.

I would like to inform you that Thomas Jefferson did rotate his corn with legumes as in cowpeas from Africa. He said that corn was hard on the soil.The amish farmers use cowpeas exclusively in rotation with corn & oats among other important crops. Cowpea hay is higher in protein,digestable nutrients & trace minerals than alfalfa. Where livestock grow tired & "go off" alfalfa, they never decline cowpea roughage & once accustomned to it they do better on it. Iron & clay is a type that can be used for grazing & will grow back from the stem if allowed to do so after grazing. A great crop for livestock grazing & fixing nitrogen in any type of soil. Actually there is a legume that is adapted to any soil & climate, just need water/rain. You may recognize blackeyed peas,whipporwill,purple hull peas as a table pea,but they are cowpeas & yield great crops with half the nitrogen(or none) of any non legume crop.

Yes, the history of crop rotation predates George Washington Carver, but one must not slight his contributions to the concept, which basically moved the idea from the fringe to mainstream agriculture through actual scientific analysis (Thomas Jefferson knew corn was hard on the soil, as did most other farmers, but did he understand nitrogen depletion? Overworking the soil through monoculture (and one should also consider over-grazing by single herded species as well) has been the norm for more than 12,000 years, and resulted in the fall of many an agrarian society.

Gods & religions exist only in the minds of indoctrinated earthlings & their bibles help to divide societies & act as barriers to personal & social growth with traditionalized outdated beliefs that only instruct with little purpose,social relevancy & tangible emotional solace. Modern man can instruct better than ancient man can, except when their is a profit margin to worry over as in the case of Monsanto & their destruction of what is natural & best. It seems that most if not all of Monsanto's creations have ended up as bad ideas & dangerous for anyone to use or consume. It has not been long enough, but the deaths will begin to rise & it will be difficult to point a finger at Monsanto, since the US has no laws on the books like in europe that makes any GM ingredients placed on the label. We will never know when GM is killing us until they place the GM ingredients on the label.

See youtubes; the World According to Monsanto & another video Food Inc. The two will explain what Monsanto is doing to the world that will make everyone regret that they ever allowed them to do so. I can hear them knocking on my door now & that is not too far off the truth as the law is allowing them to do. There is danger in what Monsanto is doing to the world & some of it might & will be irreversible.

No

Hi crimich13

Am I wrong or is isn't it the eucalyptus that poisons the ground beneath it so that nothing else can grow there?

As far as I know eucalypts don't actually poison the soil, but their combination of surface roots and deep taproot enable them to draw virtually all moisture out of the top layer of soil, while the deep taproot enables them to thrive when things are very dry.

This moisture depletion from the surface, and their tendency to make the soil alkaline at the surface, makes it very difficult for anything else to grow there.

The alkalinity can make some minerals difficult for surface rooted plants to access, while the deep taproot leaves the eucalypt unaffected.

They also have a means of dealing with flood conditions, which enable them to withstand quite lengthy periods of waterlogged soil (although not indefinitely).

As is well known even the trees native to wet forests are also able to withstand considerable periods of drought.

The short answer is they don't actually poison the soil but they do make it hard for competitors.

From what I have read, the South-West coast of the US already has more eucalyptus trees than they know what to do with, and the insects that eat them have also arrived. There are a very few species of this tree that make good lumber. The rest are useless junk. Eucalyptus is already grown and lumbered in Hawaii. If I had anything to say about it, I would vote to preserve the species we have, because we don't need new ones to care for.

This seems REALLY strange and probably is more "marketing" than science. In Australia we have example of clear felled and cleared eucalypt forests that were re-planted with "pinus radiata" since that species was faster growing and gave better timber blah blah blah. This all started nearly a century ago and was endorsed by our state forrests administrators.

The eucalypt timber is much harder. So much so, that axes in Australia are made with different taper and sharpening angles than the USA.

I've seen both pine forrest fires and eucalypt forrest fires. When they get "wild", both types will "explode" the trees when the radiant heat boils the sap inside the tree and both saps are then explosive gasses in the air overhead. (Don't ever want to be there again.) These fires sterilise the soil underneath and often nothing will grow there for years.

I wonder if "monsanto" will try to trade mark the "mono" part in monoculture and have the last laugh.

Supposedly, if something has never been patented then it can be patented & Monsanto will do it even if there is no immediate benefit from the patenting. That is the danger of this law that allows anyone to patent any non patented plant or seed.

Some eucalypts such as Tasmanian Blue Gum and Marri are fast growing but of the hundreds of Eucalypt species most are much slower growing which was why the Pinus Radiata, Honduran Pine, Maritime Pine etc were introduced.

Not all species are a high bushfire danger and forestry management is a far bigger issue than species. Take a drive along the Princes Highway around the border region. On the NSW side there are some well managed stands and across the border in VIC it is a bloody mess. The stumps from previous conflagrations have resulted in a coppiced tinder box. Clear felling with no fuel load control has the same result. Eventually the larger trees survive the wild fires and the rubbish is burnt off and useable log result. Alternatively you can manage the forest for decent timber, fire resistance and these days plentiful biofuel.

How introduced species will react is hard to say, without termites to damage the Eucalypt trees (breed not stated) higher than usual quality and yield should be achievable. It would even be possible to harvest iron Bark without a pipe up the middle.

As far as the "Poisoning" story many trees take their water from lower down. Radiata Pine is more prone to killing anything growing among them largely because of the toxicity of the needles.

Blue Gum, Spotted Gum, Salmon Gum etc are Savannah country trees which have grasslands between them.

Speaking of ethical.........some years back I drove through what was left of the trees in Humboldt County, Ca. In a matter of a few years the amount of deforestation that had taken place destroyed the future of the county. This was done by a company called Maxum which originally was a family operated enterprise by the name of Pacific Wood Products that had operated there for a hundred years. Maxum was created by a broker who lost money on the markets and needed to pay back his debt.

I should add that the amount of soil that washed into the creeks destroyed the salmon fishing industry (spawning beds) in Humboldt Bay. Rock and mud slides followed.

I saw protestors getting brutalized and, though not involved in any protest, was myself told to 'get out of town' for uttering an opinion.

If this is the price of free enterprise then something is drastically wrong with the philosophy....not to mention the f-cking idiots who protect such acts of criminal proportion...and for what amounts to be a temporary job contained in a temporary future..

ps...Last I heard Maxum was going after the Sequoia stands.

The ethics I refer to indicates the purchase of the support of local law enforcement, forestry service and county officials...that also included the FBI who were complicit to the point of murdering some of the protest leaders...all in the pursuit of private gain???

Those forests remained unchanged for 20 million years. Some trees were growing at the time that Christ was born.

I live by the tenets of do no harm. I'll be damned if I don't stand against those who would.

This was one time I wholly supported the tree huggers of N. California......and I'm Canadian.

I think you hit the nail on the head with patent rights.

We have a fast growing tree called poplar which, if dried correctly, is an excellent hardwood that has many uses. Though not of Eucalypt proportions it is harvestable between 30-50 yrs, doesn't gas off and is fairly easily worked (my floors are made out of it). It is white in colour and is excellent for staining.

In my area those pine forests that have been cut and left to regrow naturally it is poplar which forces the pine to grow straight upwards.

I live next to Algonquin Park in Ontario, Canada.....a mixed forest area of conifers and hardwoods that has been harvested many times over. Apart from the monoculture plantings ( a disaster) there are vast areas that have regrown of their own accord. In these are found some of the healthiest trees around.

Speaking for myself I would not wish to frame a house using hardwoods. The caveat would be if it was the only wood to be had.

Do you pre-drill the nail holes or does the eucalypt take a nail readily?

Now that my curiosity is up I think I'll order a board just to see what the fuss is all about.

Hi Duckinthepond

Do you pre-drill the nail holes or does the eucalypt take a nail readily?

Depends on the eucalypt variety and the seasoning.

Jarrah has a fairly straight grain and needs pre-drilling to prevent splitting.

Many others can be nailed - especially using a nail gun. The speed with which a nail gun drives the nail seems to help prevent a lot of troubles which the amateur (especially if as incompetent as me) has using a hammer.

Hand nailing, you can expect a few bent nails, and don't expect to drive it home in one or 2 blows.

Had some old timber in Mt Isa which had dried out over 50 odd years. Was more like using metal than wood. Nails bent, power saw really complained (and smoked) cutting it. Extremely strong though.

The spotted gum flooring in my place was nailed using a normal pneumatic nail gun.

Mixed hardwood flooring on a steel frame in the earlier part of the house was screwed with self drilling screws. Pre drilling wasn't needed. (Never had much luck doing that myself but the tradies had no problem).

Ironbark, if well seasoned, can be more like using steel than wood. With s.g. of 1.5 -1.6 it is also quite heavy. Extremely strong. (Good fun trying to cut it with an axe. If not used well, the axe simply bounces)

Most of these timbers have s.g. between 0.9 and 1.2 so they are heavy compared to pine or any of the timbers you would be familiar with in the US.

Another characteristic of eucalypts is the shrinkage. There is frequently a large difference between radial and tangential shrinkage, so warping and cracking can occur unless timber is well seasoned first. Quarter sawn timber gives least trouble.

This also means more care is needed in the selection of suitable glues. I haven't researched this area, but I know PVA works fine indoors, while resorcinol is good outdoors. There are undoubtedly many other suitable glues.

Given what you and Pipewelder have indicated I'd venture to say that planting eucalyptus in areas already denuded of their natural species might not be such a bad idea. If it helps to offset the cutting of rare species in areas such as Sumatra and Borneo, just to name a few, then it's a step in the right direction.

If by some miracle China and India get on board to that way of thinking.......

Well put sceptic GA from me, Ky.

Where I live in N. Georgia we have plenty of oak, hickory and other hardwood species because In my opinion there is no economical way to harvest the timber on the mountain sides yet. In south Alabama where I grew up it has a very flat lay of land that is easily harvested the hardwood has been reduce to there being very little left. There are still some tracts of hardwood on private land but it seems to me that these areas as well are dwindling down more each year and being replaced with hybrid Pines.

Several years back when the government started a "payment in kind" program where it would pay people to plant pines on ther property and pay them so much per acre each year to keep them up there was a frenzy to get on the Band wagon and reap some sure money. It was a pretty amazing thing when many of the struggling farmers gave up farming many of their fields and pastures and had them planted with pines. At first it was not noticeable but after 15 years or so the pines have grown to to the point that you can no longer tell which area was once an open pasture or field unless you spot the terraces that were left from when the fields were there.

I am sure the extra money helped many struggling farmers to pay their bills but it surely did come with a cost to the beauty of the area landscape. I wonder when/if eliminating these food growing areas by planting all of these fields with pines will effect our food supply. I guess if this does cause a food shortage at least we will have plenty of paper to record it all on or someone will figure out a way we can eat pine tree pulp or paper. I guess the gain of 5% hardwood s a good thing for you all as well as an accomplishment that the people in your state can be proud of. However I am afraid that replacing all of the big tracts of hardwood in the southern USA with hybrid pine would probably put the country as a whole in a severe "Hardwood Debt" situation if it was all figured up.

The more I think about it I wouldn't mind planting some eucalyptus trees in strategic places that could take out some of these nasty hybrid pines and the masses of biting yellow flies, rattlesnakes and other critters that love to live in the thickets of young pine with the impenetrable briar's mix around them. I am pretty sure the hardwood Forrest of the hard wood e

Pipewelder-

Here in Panama, for many years, there have been people promoting Teak as a cash crop. Would you like to know what it is like in a Central American Teak forest? Think of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring"... not a sound, but the wind in the leaves. Not an insect, not a bird, not a squirrel, NOTHING. And, when the Teak is harvested, NOTHING ELSE GROWS ON THE LAND FOR YEARS.

Now, I don't know a lot about eucalyptus. I do know that in my youth, I have planted "non-native" trees in a variety of environments (fruit trees, shade trees in my suburban gardens), and never saw a negative impact- birds would come to eat the fruit, squirrels would show up...But I also was not practicing monoculture. I can show you some forest stands where a single teak tree seems to do well, but, when it is alone, it doesn't result in the major impact on the environment that monoculture can cause.

I suspect one sees the same in the Southeast US- it is monoculture that is causing the problems, and creating the need to introduce a new species. Introducing new species is not, in my opinion, necessarily bad. Introducing these species as a monoculture is distructive- something George Washington Carver brought to our attention something like 150 years ago...

Hi cwarner7_11

Would you like to know what it is like in a Central American Teak forest? Think of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring"... not a sound, but the wind in the leaves. Not an insect, not a bird, not a squirrel, NOTHING. And, when the Teak is harvested, NOTHING ELSE GROWS ON THE LAND FOR YEARS.

Didn't realize teak virtually sterilized the soil.

Has sometimes been suggested as a timber tree here. Growth rates are rapid but we have the tip beetle which attacks red cedar (Toona australis). Apparently teak is real tasty, so plantations haven't been successful.

Perhaps I could send you some?

Here in Australia they used to clear fell the eucalpyts, burn them and plant Pinus radiata. Reason was you could get more stalks per acre and supposedly better return. Forest was dead, just as you describe, whereas every eucalypt forest I've been in has had abundant bird life. (Snakes to, but they usually get out of the road if you are noisy enough). Don't know if that would still hold true for mono culture.

Did similar up here and used mixture of rain forest species and acacias as a wind break, with hoop pine as the main crop. Much to their astonishment, the wind break out grew the pines! Trees were more valuable than the pines too.

In their natural state trees usually grow as part of a group of different species and generally thrive that way.

If harvested by selective logging instead of clear felling the forest recovers well and still thrives.

In the rain forest, you don't even need to replant, there are always umpteen seedlings waiting for a break in the canopy to allow them to grow - and they do, fast.

Forestry can add value by replanting a range of the more valuable trees, without damaging the diversity which seems necessary for a healthy forest.

Unfortunately, the planners don't seem able to see past mono culture and clear felling with chipping, quite forgetting that identical trees don't grow at identical rates and carefully felling the large trees stimulates the growth of the next biggest as well as some of the smaller trees.

There is a huge variety of fast growing and valuable trees, most of which are hardy and should grow in the US environment. Why insist on mono culture?

One thing that should be considered is planting some of the taller acacias as well as the other trees. Acacias are legumes and help keep the soil healthy.

In your teak forests, I imagine if they planted Brown Salwood (Acacia aureocarpis or similar name, can't remember it right now) they would not only gain a valuable cabinet timber (it is beautiful, as well as being both light and hard) but keep their soil in better condition. Black wattle (Acacia mangium) should do well too - another superb cabinet timber.

Well written and keeping the propaganda out of it makes it a real gem in terms of sincerity. I have voted all of your last replies as good answers, wish you were here, Ky.

Likewise ga from me. Growing hemp has other advantages in those areas where clay and podosol soils impede sustainable agriculture. Growing it improves the soil characteristics and creates a micro economy in those regions where none was to be had...._{^{most of Canada comes to mind}}.........

Jack London brought Eucalyptus to No. California, not realizing that they are poor timber. I would bet that geneticists putting fast growth genes in pine will be way ahead of those trying to put good timber quality into eucalyptus.