Genetically Modified Eucalyptus Tree Tests

Treebeard

I read about this today. Was curious what you Aussies thought of it.-

The Associated Press: Paper industry tests genetically altered trees


I've never touched or seen a Eucalyptus, so I'm not sure I want them around.

Eric Frei

Well, it's a controlled situation by the sound sound it, farming trees for pulp.

We got eucs in Tassie that can stand freezing conditions but they must be using a few other ssp's.

__________________

Treebeard

Wouldn't they they drown other trees out? growth rate is what 25 ft/yr?

Whats the non-native policy in Tas.? After thinking about it today, I think introducing nonnative species that are engineered to grow beyond their own natural boundaries doesn't sound too cool. I've seen to much kudzu to readily invite non native species into my back yard.

Besides I think there are pulp alternatives to Euc's.

jmcg.insight.gardens

Hi there Tree beard,

I remember something about problems they are finding with genetically modified Euc. plantations down there in Tassie. The following link might be of interest, also there is some speculation as to these plantations causing the Tasmanian Devil's Viral Tumour problem, via the initial contaminating of the water.

Tasmanian Times

sueann

Toxic plantations? oh right, that sounds like so good - not.

Brent Ferris

History is replete with examples where people had the best of intentions of keeping things under control, the plant/virus/insect etc spread -- and the usual response is we had no way of knowing this would happen, or how widespread the problem would become.

It shouldn't be hard to forecast the possibilities of what can reasonably (and unreasonably) go wrong.

However, in Ontario the provincial government spent a lot of money hybridizing poplar trees 1960-1990 (or thereabouts)( Dr. Zuffa headed the research), and came up with a number of varieties that grew fast, regenerated well, great source for pulp and could grow on land not ideally suited for other farm uses. One variety was developed that would reach 3 feet in diameter in 10 years! The most common hybrids averaged 2-4 feet of height growth per year. The plan was to grow an acre(or more) of poplar per year, and after 10 years harvest it, and after 3 harvesting cycles, root it out, and let it sucker up and continue regenerating.
It was a great plan. Except they didn't allow for soil mineral depletion. Trees that grow that fast deplete the soil big time. THe next crop took longer to produce the same volume of pulp, and I am unclear if they ever got a 3rd cycle. Of course, if they didn't care about runoff or groundwater contamination, I'm sure they could have fertilized with some waste from the sanitation plants. I believe putting more money into the plan was viewed as a lost cause, and the whole scheme was dropped.
But it did occupy the government's attention for a good many years.

jmcg.insight.gardens

Yep, I suppose a classic example would be the Gulf oil spill happening right now.

Julie

Eric Frei

I like research.

I also like fact and data.

But right now all we have is speculation, of course if there has been a cover up that is different.

I also found this article.

Tasmanian Times

which lead to this article, that describes the toxicity of eucs in general.

Plants Poisonous to Livestock - Cornell University Department of Animal Science

Could it be that the toxicity is normal but due to denser plantings the ppm has increased, and that is the issue?

Appears so to me, that's my gut feeling.

It's similar to all those camphor laurels on riverbanks killing our fish etc.

Till the data is in be open minded.

The question is, are forest E nitens any more toxic than naturally non modified E nitens on a leaf vs leaf basis?

That is what I am looking for. My hunch (as said before) is that we have a monoculture that is a lot denser.

__________________

Treebeard

Open minded lol, right lets trust the paper co's just like BP. (The research and data are being gathered by the same co's that stand to profit from it) I'm all for research and data however why cant this tree be researched in it's native environment? I don't care for the south eastern US to be a guinea pig for the sake of data. And dense planting is exactly what plantation farming is. There are places in the southern US that I can drive for 6 hours at 65 mph and see nothing but slash pine plantations, and like it or not those areas are inhabited by wildlife thats never seen a Euc. And like in the gulf if we wait till the data is floating in on the tide killing wildlife in it's wake, we could be facing a catastropy.

Here's an open minded idea: Why not use hemp which we know is great for such things and is a native crop? Oh thats right we can't because big business outlawed it.

Please pardon my defensive posture on this one, I'm usually fairly easy going.

Eric Frei

well, with an attitude like that you mustn't eat or drink about anything on this planet because it's pretty much all modified.

__________________

Treebeard

Watch Food Inc. if you want to lose your apatite.

And true everything we eat that has any processing and many fruit/veges are genetically modified and likely to cause instant death upon consumption. But... if anyone knows of any grapefruit, orange, lemon, lime, or pecan tree that grows above 2,500 ft sealevel and can handle six months of subfreezing temps let me know cause I want some.

The areas that they are talking about one day farming these GM Euc's contain some of the most beautiful live oaks in the world as well as, multiple varieties of Oaks, magnolia, sycamore, hickory, pines, etc...
Maybe those trees are there because they belong there and the reason Euc's aren't there is because they don't belong there.

I wonder how long my pets would be quarantined if I were to travel down under? 6 months or more? Why?

Now I gotta go watch that Simpsons episode Bart vs. Australia just for the Cane Toad reference

jmcg.insight.gardens

Yep I remember reading about that too, interesting how animals evolve, evolution takes time, we have a habit of creating scenarios that nature cannot adapt to quickly enough.

yep that,s my mind set in general, so I couldn't agree more. The studies done, I wonder if they are made public? I often take years to decide on a matter, once I have all the facts, at this stage one would think that it might be the large scale of the plantings that are the problem, too close to waterways.

I did watch that show mentioned in the article, I think more research needs to be done, going on the information presented, and as always my mind is never set in stone. The case scenario is that all the facts are not present, I just remembered watching it, I thought it might be of interest.

Plantations are necessary, mankind has a ever growing need for the wood products, plantations are the solution really, it's that or deplete the natural reserves in time. Plantations are sustainable if done in the right way, wood is a sustainable product. It can be replaced.

But I ponder the information in that article and program. It's open to discussion and if there is a problem research should be forthcoming I think. I wonder if there is any research on E, nitens being more toxic per leaf volume than other species, might have to look into that.

But lack of serious research on the side of introducing new species to an area has proven in the past time and time again to be potential disaster, research first then implementation, always wiser methinks.


Julie

jmcg.insight.gardens

reminds me of parts of New Zealand, mind you over there if you drove for that long you would have done the whole of the North Island, large areas of nothing but pines, but there is an advantage to them, the introduced possums are eating out everything else except them.

What is the solution to plantations, couldn't tell you, plantations versus tropical deforestation, or plantations versus native timber, fact is is that wood is a more sustainable product than many other products, between a rock and a hard place I think.

Julie

Eric Frei

I've PM'd Gus.

He knows a lot about eucs and runs this place.

EUCALYPTOLOGICS: GIT Forestry Consulting Information Resources on Eucalyptus Cultivation Worldwide : EUCALYPTOLOGICS: GIT Forestry Consulting Information Resources on Eucalyptus Cultivation Worldwide

I hope he has time to tell us what he knows about eucs as forests and if there is genetically engineered ones and toxicity etc.

__________________

Done it

We haven't heard from Gus for a while, hope he responds.

I remember reading somewhere they planted lots of Blue gums in some western US states, they didn't grow like they do here. The timber is next to useless and they are considered a pest by a lot of people.

Not unlike a lot of trees brought here.

jmcg.insight.gardens

Should be interesting

sueann

I went to NZ awhile ago Julie, to a town called Waiuku, they have a great equestrian centre a bit out of town called Isola, I saw the hugest forest of pine trees, it went for miles and was quite pretty. NZ is a very pretty country, we've been there twice now.

Gus

You are discussing 3 different topics in this thread:

1) The approval by the competent USA authorities for upscaling the controlled trials with Genetically Modified Eucalyptus in Southeastern USA.

2) The false belief (intentionally promoted by some) about Genetically Modified Eucalyptus growing wildly in Tasmania (or elsewhere in Australia).

3) One of the latest mainland coordinated environmentalist lobby campaigns launched against the public and private industrial forestry sector in Tasmania.

Each of the topics is different, has developed for different reasons, and has different implications. The three of them have, however, a common link: interests associated to the Environmentalist Movement (that chaotic mass of funding structures, political branches, activist branches, intellectual elite and plain terrorists and a mass of sheep believing whatever they say) launching or re-activating media and activity campaigns to exploit our fears and limited basic knowledge on things, respectively, about (and pardon me the ironic and clearly exaggerated language):

a) Mad scientists creating frankentrees to serve the greed of the most evil sinner human creation: capitalist driven industrial activity. Those trees will doom the world and will cause apocalypse.

b) The Evil Empire destroyer of the last remaining pristine forests of Van Diemen's Land (made of "everyone in Tassie having to do with trees except us and five Senators in Canberra") raping Gaia everyday under our noses, and being so dumb they also use frankentrees.

c) Whatever is not stopping totally any human activity on Tassie's forests is bad, even if it means we all starve (well, not us really, all the others). So, let's blame the Evil Empire of anything we can pass by the media: all types of cancer, total intoxication of seafood, death of all animals, destruction of all plants, air, water, health, and also the Naa'vi. Of course, they also caused the Icelandic ash cloud and will be responsible of the next Mass Extinction Event via asteroid impact.

I repeat I exaggerated the language considerably, but the "bottom message" is not that far apart from such, just using more complex and intelligent ways.

Now, if you want to start with facts about each of the three, maybe the best is that I do not say a word, and simply paste links to the original sources of information, and not to opinion articles, biased opinion articles, intentionally biased opinion articles or blatant lies?

Before that, my perspective (which is not necessarily the truth, but yes as balanced as possible an interpretation of what all those bastards are doing with our minds):

1) Frankentrees do not exist, they were invented by some imaginative and low paid marketing campaign worker. The developed world is already being fed on Genetically Modified Agricultural Crops as we speak. If they did not exist, some more millions extra of our fellas would starve every year, besides of the amounts which sadly already do.

2) There have never been any Genetically Modified Eucalyptus in Australasia beyond of what laws and regulations permit for totally controlled laboratory work.

3) There is no phyto-chemical (plant chemistry) that is not toxic to some organism if existing around it in enough amounts for enough time. And not for that we exterminate all plants. In fact, we even have been using some of them as basis to control human diseases since the hunting-gathering era.

This is Tree World. You are Tree people. Do not be afraid of trees. They are never wrong doing their thing (you know, oxygen, carbon, biomass, beauty). Only people may do wrong (or right, depending on perspective).

__________________
EUCALYPTOLOGICS, Information resources on Eucalyptus cultivation here and there

Treebeard

Hi Gus,

Allow me to better explain to you what I'm really getting down to:

A: Yes I'm a tree person and evidently like you I make money off of trees.

B: I run a sawmill and let me take a moment to bask in the glory of our forests. In the area I live in "the cradle of forestry in america" we make the highest quality hardwood on planet earth. If some fast growing tree invades this place guess what, we lose an important source of income, period. And I haven't heard of Euc's wood rivaling Black Walnut or Cherry in price per Bd Ft. It's dollars and cents.

C:
1: In the areas south of here where they are planning this test I wouldn't mind all the Slash Pine farms rolling over into Euc farms if they wouldn't spread invasively, contaminate water or kill wildlife.

2: All the lowlands of South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida could be major hemp producing states, After a quick google search: I read that an acre of hemp gives up to 4 times more pulp per acre than timber is this false?

1916 USDA Bulletin #404 $ayz 1~Acre of HEMP is EQUAL to 4~Acres of TREES Over 20~Year Rotation Period

Page 24

D: We around here used to have this thing called an American Chestnut, maybe you have heard of it. Anyhow a foreign blight came in on imported Chinese Chestnut (which had developed an immunity to the blight) and wiped out a true american treasure. Can you absolutely guarantee that no special pest or Blights will crop up from the Euc's?

Gus

Sharing tree related businesses means we are already friends by default, or we should. .

It is my understanding that the development of this new generation of eucalypt trees for a South Eastern USA scenario aims to a totally different market segment to that one of the glorious Black Walnut, Cherry, or specialty hardwood timbers that can reach those high unitary prices. Those fast growing eucalypts are aimed to produce wood fiber. From those fibers, classically for some 50 years, cellulosic pulp and later paper have been made. But these days, new technologies for bio-refineries are ready to convert cellulose (a plant sugar) into ethanol, a renewable liquid fuel. Hence, we may be talking about a new biofuel crop, same way corn already is in more fertile soils, or sugar cane (and eucalypts also) are in Hawaii or Florida. For your area, I think you can think of it as a "giant frost hardy tree sized sugar cane crop for ethanol". Not as a "natural timber plank and beam crop for solidwood". The dollars and cents come from different concepts: cycles of many tons of raw material of lower unitary value supplied very fast per acre, compared to slower cycles of slower growing, selectively harvested, well tended individually valuable trees that yield more than just timber. Soda compared to vintage rare wine. Both are necessary, or meals would be too boring. I think the American Cradle is safe in that sense.

A part of the South Eastern pine plantations are already shifting industrial destination: from more classic uses to wood pellets, another renewable biofuel. It may not make much sense for firewood users in rural areas, but it certainly makes it for highly urbanised ones as alternative to fossil fuels, where firewood cannot be sourced. It is possible that some of that pine productive area is converted to eucalypt in some years if everything goes okay with the trials. It could be even beneficial, as it means 2 products lines, from 2 types of trees, aiming at renewable fuel markets, liquid and solid. Some classic agricultural land may also be converted, but as I said above, to another form of agriculture, simply tree based. Then, corn, making 2 product lines from 3 types of plants. And there are many more being bred for this. Diversification is good. If well planned, it could work quite well.

Well, I do not know. I would have to check that up and see if it could be, but it is probably true. But even if it was true, there are always advantages and disadvantages. For instance, hemp would be an annual crop (I think). Which means more overall inputs for cultivation along, say, those 20 years. From machinery fuel (emits carbon, lowering the carbon saving of the final ethanol) to yearly mineral fertilizing (their manufacture "costs energy") and everything else. Only very good soils could support that, however, trees are multi-year crops even in such fast rotations (5 to 7 years is fast), and are less demanding for soil properties, especially soil depth.

Basically, the best way is adapting these "new" crops to the most efficient productivity range for each soil, climate and desired product. USA agronomists and foresters are very good doing that. They have been for many years.

But what really matters is not only raw productivity (that 400% extra for hemp, for instance) but the delivered cost of the final product (renewable fuel), discounting emitted carbon costs and normal costs during cultivation, transport of feedstock, industrial processing, refining, and distribution. What also matters too is that biorefineries (pulp mills are a type of them, but there are more) are many times configured to work with a given type of material, or mix of materials in stable proportions. You don't make cider in a winery, or wine in a brewery.

But, once all that is said, why saying no to hemp, or switchgrass, or any of the other options? It is probably technically possible. Another thing is if all the possible industrial lines are the same efficient, and even if they are, if they can compete in the markets. I don´t have the answer. If I had, I would be working for Mr. President!

Of course I have heard of it. We have had a very similar case with the European chestnut and a similar fungal disease, maybe the same one, some decades later. It was thanks to the Chestnut Heroes of the USA that we learned to start fixing the problem, using genes within the surviving American chestnut, and the Chinese Chestnut, and mixing them with ours by breeding new trees. Those tree treasures, and many others, have been wiped out, but not completely. The will be back. It will take time and effort, but I am confident on it. And guess what? The same guys engineering those eucalypts are also collaborating in the chestnut recovery effort, joining others who started earlier by saving the surviving resistant genes from chainsaw.

It is impossible to absolutely guarantee something like what you ask me to. No one can guarantee such a thing, neither for eucs, or for any other plant, fruit, wood piece or organic material arriving to the USA by any port in normal trade. It is a risk, but similar risks happen every day all along of your country, mine, or Ekka's. And that does not stop the world. In fact, it happend before: almost all the world wine industry was wiped out many moons ago by a rot. But, do we still have wine? What is good is minimizing risks. And that is exactly what is done by controlled trialling things first, under the surveillance from your government authorities.

Cheers

Gus

__________________
EUCALYPTOLOGICS, Information resources on Eucalyptus cultivation here and there

Gus

You are describing the process by which a good number of millions of acres of poplar and eucalypt timber crops are managed around the world as we speak. At once they occupy a very tiny % of total available land they are now increasingly sourcing majority of industrial timbers (by volume). I have both types of timber crops (hybrid poplars and eucalytps) "in my backyard" to say it so. In sizeable acreages. For over 70 years. Rotation cycles can be as fast as 5 to 7 years in more tropical climates. It is not so different from an agricultural crop. And, as any agricultural crop, fertilizer is needed to sustain production.

One of the differences for your case, compared to other latitudes and climates as mine or the tropics, is precisely that processes of mineralization of organic matter ("fertilizer") for tree uptake may be slower. Why? Temperature. Boreal forests are slow motion forests. Soils are also slow. But if you have the chance to visit the tropics sometime, plant something and come back in 10 days It is not so fast here, but I see trees growing almost an inch height per day (measured). Over 10 feet per year. No soil depletion with soil analysis and monitoring + a sensible fertilizing regime along the life cycle of the tree crop.

__________________
EUCALYPTOLOGICS, Information resources on Eucalyptus cultivation here and there

Gus

Sorry to be away, and happy to be around if needed.

About plantation grown Blue Gums, please look at nice photos and read nice stories about what we do around here with that "next to useless timber".

Sawmilling Eucalyptus globulus: a Galician tradition

Eucalyptus made Mussel Farms: Seafood of Galicia

No tree is useless, we just need to learn how to make it useful, and what for

__________________
EUCALYPTOLOGICS, Information resources on Eucalyptus cultivation here and there

Gus

Yes. You can find some interesting reading here, including yours truly saying the same on TV.

Yes. You can read something interesting on that here. Tasmanian forestry science is world class, regardless of the scandals that appear in the media. So is Australian forestry science in general.

Eucalyptus as timber crops are one of the most intensively studied trees in the human history from almost any existing point of view. And some take that duty very seriously. In many countries, including yours

Cheers

Gus

__________________
EUCALYPTOLOGICS, Information resources on Eucalyptus cultivation here and there

jmcg.insight.gardens

Gus,


looking forward to your newsletters, thank you for your prompt reply.


Julie

Treebeard

Thanks for taking the time to give us that info and insight Gus. You made your points well.

As with any "new" thing people are cautious of it, thats all.

Heck, as an example most guys around here still spike trees to prune. They look at me like I'm some tree fairy when I break out the rope and saddle.

Gus

Being cautious is understandable, even desirable, especially when there is such a criss-cross of "do" and "don't" conflictive information available. Then, also true, changes in forestry are almost universally slow. I think it is because we tree people have adapted to behave "at tree speed". What is not so understandable is why people are so easily terrorized and lead into panic with tales of Frankentrees.

If you want to explore a bit more the dollar and cent part of these new alternatives for agricultural Eucalyptus tree cultivation for North Carolina, this may be a good start (all in all, Raleigh!). But before you read, no, the trees in the photo are not in NC (yet), but in Alabama, where the previous range of controlled trials managed to take place (after very stiff opposition from several lobbies, of course) allowing calculations, estimations of performance of the crop, etc. etc.

__________________
EUCALYPTOLOGICS, Information resources on Eucalyptus cultivation here and there

Eric Frei

Thank you Gus, I knew you could put the wood on a few!

You know in national IQ tests that Tasmanians ranked the lowest..... general public we're talking here, so imagine their mainstream media.

Nice to see you around, thanks once again.

__________________

Gus

They are few, and their island is an amazing different reality. It has always been. Maybe they were playing being dumb intentionally to amuse the Canberra guys

I leave 4 or 5 very neat and precise questions several of you you made along this thread unanswered. Some of the answers (not really mine) exist already, some are "in the process of being refined" by many others to serve their purpose in due course. Time will settle things, you'll see.

But, as some sort of summary, there are some 5 million acres of genetically modified (so, a step beyond classic tree breeding) fast growing trees growing in the world already. There are also many more million acres of genetically modified agricultural crops doing the same thing for a much longer time. It is a global trend. It may spread faster or slower in different areas. But it is unstoppable, and much of the noise you may hear has less to do with the impacts they may generate than it has to do with stirring spread by those profiting from older technologies or understanding the world through them. And I do not precisely mean farmers . Will it mean ordinary crops will disappear? Probably not. We will always need their genetic diversity (among other things) as an insurance for future, same way we will need that genetic diversity of the non domesticated alive beings.

__________________
EUCALYPTOLOGICS, Information resources on Eucalyptus cultivation here and there

Done it

Nice to hear from you again Gus.

They were not my words, just something I read somewhere and it wasn't about plantation trees.

Although some over there, don't like them much.

"Blue gum eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus globulus) are big, charismatic, incendiary trees, loved, hated, and feared by Californians."

Luckily I don't have to look at pictures of them as I live and work amongst them, unfortunately not as many as there used to be. Blue Gum High Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion - Information sheet

There is a PDF there you might like to read.

jmcg.insight.gardens

big, charismatic, I agree. Problem is that they are almost wiped out in Habitat. What is it with the Americans? they seem to have such a strong reaction to Eucs.

Liked your video Gus, except I don't speak Espanol.............

We are only the fourth largest growers of plantation Eucalyptus, I did understand that part,............. surprising when you think of it.

When I think of all that potential carbon sequestering, there are a lot of areas here that could do with more Eucalyptus even if they are non provinence. It would also help with our salinity problems, farmers wasting their time with crops and livestock through drought etc, what a shame.

Julie