 I don't always agree with the Wilderness Society about native forest policy, but some of the points they make in their submission to a Timber Industry Strategy for Victoria ring very true. The vast bulk of native forests in Victoria are sold cheaply to paper interests and are harvested in a manner which does not suit the long term interests of any other group
- including the sawlog industry.
With the era of carbon trading imminent, I'd be even more annoyed if
short-rotation crops of blue gum destined for the pulp mill are seen as our best models of
carbon-storage sinks, or any sort of investment target put up for emitters. Ten to twelve year rotations are negligible periods of carbon storage for
industrial-scale plantations given the energy inputs in planting, harvesting and processing of the end product. Did I recently hear the claim that paper product has a positive carbon
residual? Not the first time this sort of claim will be made, misread, misheard or just plain broadcast as misinformation.
Yet provision in plantation form for true carbon sinks will need to be made. Not the model of a vast monoculture requiring heavy herbicide regimes. Not always for
high-production purposes. Indeed - some not for harvest. Not always in
600mm-plus rainfall belt. Not always on land for which there is competitive demand for cropping and grazing. Once we learn the art of woodlots, models of forest regrowth and their benefits, we will plant in diverse ways and in unexpected regions.
Preferably, we should plant a diversity of species in a single woodlot. Extend the rotation of
sawlog-priority woodlots or plantations to 30 years and we can produce poles. Extend rotation to 50 to 80 years for flooring, joinery and veneers. Look at the current trend in values in these uses and we can see they will exceed paper by an increasing margin of value. And
carbon-storage is guaranteed in the final product.
Carbon credits need to be directed to both long-rotation plantations and
forever-woodlots. It is time to be genuine about pulplog farms. After sixteen years of benefiting from sleazy tax
write-offs - our money - should they also be delivered the imprimatur of carbon
credits? Without either they are barely profitable. I get annoyed reading of some mindless Japanese electronics company investing in bluegum plantations to offset their carbon emissions. But the idea of the rest of us allowing carbon credits for this type of tree planting without due scrutiny, without inquiry, churns me up. What happened to healthy
scepticism? Has it been replaced with a blind acceptance of any environmental claim by big business, just because
there's a tree in the picture?
 
A recent phase of demolition at Port
Melbourne's Station Pier supplied mighty Jarrah beams 300 x 100mm in excellent condition at a length just shy of 6.0m (5.8
- 5.9m).
Punctuated by boltholes @ 800mm, the face of the beam is otherwise clear with a straight edge.
For clients seeking a valuable piece of Port Phillip Bay history, the shorter lengths were milled to
85 x 85mm post-stock
and 270 x 40mm beams (2.5 - 3.0m). Tables - yes, but shopfitting and building uses suggest themselves
also.
There's always a supply of Gippsland bridges arriving at
Timberzoo, but the most recent lot shows great length. 4.5m to 5.0m. A
good-looking batch to pick from early before the best ones go. Mixed species, but all posts show a uniformly silvered, weathered patina knobbed with a bit of bolt action and shallow rebate patterning on the face.
|
