Відео

Seems so obvious! If it looks ugly, mean and only benefits the shareholders of the investment companies who own the land, then it is unsustainable, basically, short-term raping of the land, nature, wildlife and everything!

❤love. Trees

Great video, good to see alternatives to the environmentally disaster zones of “traditional” commercial forestry.

Best video yet Tom. Are you and David going to be talking at the APF this year?

Fantastic. Very inspiring. Thank you.

Unfortunately this type of forestry is not possible in the UK due to most of the commercial contractors do not have the kit for low impact forestry which they use in Europe unless they start buying smaller machines which do less damage to the ground and makes it more cost effective maybe look into low impact forestry machines which we need our uk contractors to use

We've found ourselves stuck between the council departments with continuous cover management, we have a wet woodland at the side of a village with a small back road (lane) along one edge which is 220m. The ecologist and conservation side of the council want us to keep as many trees as possible, (which is/was our plan) however the transport department and the councillors want the trees felled and are pushing this by not contacting us then there is any issue ( a small branch comes off a tree or a tree comes down in a storm), then sending us an invoice for any clear up operation with many hundreds of pounds added as an admin fee. This is a self regulating department without any appeal process and even though we have shown we maintain the trees, they clearly don't want them there and we can't afford to keep paying their Dick Turpin invoices. I'm far from optimistic now about the future.

if you haven't see Part 1 - here is the link: ua-cam.com/video/UrHxSNSR8pk/v-deo.html

Part 2 can be found here ua-cam.com/video/XDUFshyWZhc/v-deo.htmlsi=0Rj80A4sXz9R73vM

Thank you for your contribution. The videos are of such high quality, not least in their information content. Very encouraging.

And what is the name of the predators he mentioned which can help control Grey squirrels? I got Pine Martin, was the other goshawk? What did he mean when he said it's not necessary its an irregular forest?

Interesting video and analysis, but you left something out that seems significant. You mentioned that 70% of the land in the UK is in agriculture. Those are plants, too, and absorb C02. It isn’t just trees that do it. Don’t all plants contribute to the sequestration calculation?

(high land cost) = only absurd yields is justifiable, and nobody accepts expensive crops when you can buy crops made by people on far lower incomes (high labour cost). i believe agrof. can produce huge yields but ive yet to see any method of actually harvesting things that isnt shockingly labour intensive. perhaps simple strip polyculture helps: I know in south america they are doing big projects where they grow Inga, an edible nitrogen fixing tree, as rows alongside regular crops. But even then... I suspect if not for tradition and protectionism this country would become a giant suburb like the netherlands.

Is he saying "irregular forestry" for continuous cover system, or "in regular"

Thanks. Good questions, some of which are answered in part 2 out next week. Some which there just wasn’t enough time in the space we had to cover fully. This needed up being two films rather than one because it is such an interesting subject to cover, with much detail. But briefly: There are marked track ways which are used for smaller machines to go in and harvest. The harvesting teams know to aim the felled trees towards those tracks and to avoid regenerating areas. The wood that is felled is of a size and quality that makes it financially viable for harvesting. Like most productive woodlands, there is monitoring and culling of deer and squirrel population. And the encouragement of predatory species. Also individual trees are protected at certain ages/stages.

Promising concept and really important work! My questions would be: How do you harvest without needing to destroy smaller trees to come in with machinery? How do you supply the demand for big quantities of the same wood (which I'd assume is the norm), instead of a variety of different typed qualities of wood. How do you deal with selective grazing from deer populations and invasive species, to ensure a high diversity? I'd imagine that might be really difficult in this system.

Wow so many experts in this video and they all fit together perfectly to give you a really idea of what is happening with UK woodland cultivation

Simple plant more trees and have a negative population growth 😊

Should not plant trees on farmland. Food is more important than trees. Not many recipes for acorns. Open your eyes and see how varied our landscape is. Tell the truth, Woodland Trust imported the Ash tree disease. Stop paddling lies about trees alleviating flooding. DAMS stop flood's from uplands.

Xlnt

Government gets in the way!

Great work. We've investigated this topic too, and found on a glabal scale the same issue occurs. You sort of mentioned at the start about forrests being buried. But at the end suggested the absorption is a % per year. It would be an ongoing going amount if the trees were harvested and buried deep. Essentially, reverse mining. Mature forrests, etc, reach an equilibrium of carbon in/out. -Ken

Excellent video! Thank you!

❤❤😊😊

More houses being planted than trees....We are all up the creek without a paddle...GREED will be our down fall

The jays do the planting for us, along with a few dedication tree planters up and down the country

Whats holding it back is the land being swallowed up for housing developments we can sustain ....GREED is destroying us all.....

Great video!

No mention of the invasive grey squirrels destroying your forest once the trees reach the age of 20 + years . No one is planting oak trees in the South of England anymore because of grey squirrels . Also deer grazing the seedlings and saplings.

The video is very misleading - it states that newly planted trees sequester C by 20T/ha/yr. This is far from correct - a newly planted forest releases C for up to 20 years. This is due to slow growth initially (a tree, the thickness of a pencil and 100 leaves doesn't absorb much C) and C released from the soil.

Rewilding should be preferred over forestation in many cases. Tree cover is not the answer to everything, grasslands, wetlands and bogs sequester carbon as well.

10:10 the reason the carbon price is less than the cost to grow, is because your aim isnt to grow carbon you are growing a product which has a value of its own, either food or timber, also arable land is the best agricultural land and is the last place trees should be planted, rough grazing should be first to be changed from agricultural to forestry

It's not just no to a United Ireland it's no to indepence for Scotland

Quite possibly the most well made video explaining the absolute pointlessness of tree planting in the UK. 🤔 Carbon taxes. SCAM. 🤦 Removal of food production land... For it to be produced overseas. SCAM 🤦 I get the idea that more trees are beneficial. But... UK population growth is insane.... And they need food (not pork😂 or alcohol though) Would happily be schooled that I'm incorrect.... But I fear I'm absolutely not. Carbon credits... 😂😂😂 Ole' stelios easy jet pretending his flying birds = net zero. MENTAL!!! Meanwhile.... BraZIL be hancking the Forrest down to supply Chinese hog farms with soy. 🤔🤦🤣

This sort of rewiding does nothing to address biodiversity because a lack of trees was never the reason for the decline in biodiversity in the first place. Name a single species of bird that has declined in the last 40 years through a lack of trees? Of course there isnt one.

Natural England are threatening to prosecute me for planting trees on former sheep pasture because they 'cannot rule out the possibility' that a golden plover recorded three years ago might - MIGHT - want to eat the grass or make a nest there. Environmental reductionism that favours feathery enviro-porn over habitat creation. Most Pennine sheep farms will be barred from tree planting or woodland creation for the same reason. The Forestry Commission used to be the 'competent authority' on woodland creation; now they have surrendered that role to Natural England who take an absolutist position, non-negotiable and very, very shortsighted.

how can the local councils and goverment give permission to some thing that has been around for thousands of years.

if eveyone planted a tree at home, i wonder how much better the world would be ? just stirring the pot

I think a lot of farmers can't see the wood for the trees,many are still living in the 20th century when the norm was to remove trees from farmland.When farmers do move away from traditional farming and start to rewild part of their land it's been very successful.Look at knepp it's been a massive success, they are making more money now than when it was a traditional farm.I think farmers should get rewilding now,it's the future and beneficial for all humans,animals and the planet.

Why a low carbon future? There is a lot of carbon on the planet!

Yeah, rewilding with plastic guards, plastic ties, diesel lorries/tractors to get it there and the list goes on.

Similar concepts are involved here in Pennsylvania. Sure wish we had more people like your group here in the USA to keep the pressure on the Govt to help transition to environmentally friendly methods.

Great video.

FYI - Tom Barnes was less involved this film as he has been working on The National Wood Strategy - a pathway towards a sustainable forest products industry in England. It was released last week. See it here - thenationalwoodstrategy.co.uk Both the strategy and this film have covered similar ground and have informed each other. It’s nice they were both released the same week.

Why not dib in acorns to supplement your naturally regenerated ash and sycamore? And why stop at acorns?

"As we all know, trees absorb carbon, or in technical lingo, sequester carbon". No we don't know. Trees do not sequester carbon. Sequestered carbon is (as your animation says) carbon that is locked away from biosphere processes: coal, oil, gas, lignite. Trees and woodlands capture carbon. Quite good at it and coppice is especially good. Trees also store carbon for the life of the individual tree: it stores carbon in its body as 'wood' (including the root system) and storage lasts for a while after the tree dies, before it rots. Woodlands multiply up the amount stored. But woodlands are extremely good at carbon cycling. No carbon is actually sequestered. Just stored temporarily: Although an old oak stores carbon for longer than a human life, it is NOT sequestered. Peat bogs (as you say in passing) sequester carbon. Maerl beds sequester carbon. Trees and woodlands (and forests) do not. "In the right circumstances and over long periods of time, carbon from these dead plants gets trapped in layers of sediment and becomes fossil carbon". THAT is carbon sequestration - part 3 of a process which goes: 1) carbon capture 2) carbon storage 3) carbon sequestration with part 3 operating on tiny percentages of the carbon captured and taking geological ages. Storage of carbon as 'wood' in a tree can be extended by harvesting timber and converting it into wood products which do not rot (as a tree left in a woodland eventually will). Think of the timber beams in Ely Cathedral or the vernacular medieval cottages in Sussex. The wood is there and un-rotted, so kind of sequestered because decay causing organisms cannot get at it to cycle the carbon it contains. Kind of an anthropogenic semi-sequestration, but in reality just extended carbon storage. Here's a short, chopped-together vid shot by to explain the differences between capture, storage and sequestration. It is a lo-fi, no-budget thing that explains with examples and gives examples of actual biological shortcuts to carbon sequestration, no trees involved. The short-cut closest to real sequestration is marine and there are other routes, also marine that aren't mentioned. ua-cam.com/video/ZadE0OWwtWY/v-deo.html A challenge to you: watch it and see what you think. I think the distinction is damned important.

Planting trees is only part of the equation. We have more trees and woodland now that we have had since the end of the first world war (your own figures in this video). Another question we must address is the management (and productivity) of our existing woodlands. Why is it so bloody hard to get support for managing small woodlands? Reinstating coppicing, supporting markets for coppice products, training coppice workers would all help support small-scale rural economic enterprises (including farmers). Not just grant aid support, but new barriers brought in such as the recent Ready to Burn/Woodsure malarkey which chills the production of high quality wood fuels by small scale producers working on a small local scale. Idiocy.

Tom And Vic Davies farmed in Somerset (their family 200+ yrs) until my parents bought the 200 acre farm in 1970. Every Saturday they use to go to Taunton market where they always bought a tree sapling to then plant on the farm. As a result the farm is still today one of the most wooded and beautiful farms I have ever seen (biased). Oh a side note was when my parents retired in 2010 Gorse reappeared on the steep slopes . However, after 10 years of the Gorse, naturally propertied tree saplings are appearing everywhere they get the protection from the Gorse to allow them to grow past their 4- 6 foot vulnerable stage of life (previously the Deer and Cattle ate the saplings). Keeping hedgerows tightly trimmed and not having trees growing in fields is still today seen as good practice in my local farming community.

I'm farming in West Wales, beef and lamb. Including wide fenced-in hedges, typically about ten feet wide and filled with standards down to shrubs, I guess about 15% of my lands are wooded, and about half of that periodically has livestock through it. I have put in many more trees, plashed others and am open to having more trees, but... I NEED to earn a living from my land. On principle, I do not and never have claimed subsidy; I would have no problem with receiving a specific PERMANENT annual payment for land given over to woodland. But... what about food 'security' and food 'miles'?

Bureaucracy. Can not plant trees without permission. Ridiculous Britain.