Peripherals pay for forests

truffler1635 at truffler1635 at
Thu Nov 4 10:57:12 EST 1999

In article <s20lkrl124263 at>,
  bob mcarthur <rgmcarthatviserdotnet> wrote:
> paul at writes: > Tom, that's not the point - the point is anyway that the forest can't be
> Just for laughs, let me ask.
I love a challenge.
> Define forestry.
Growing trees. But another definition in Webster's is "harvesting
trees." These seem non-identical to me. Should "harvesting trees" be
terms "logging?"
> Deifine sustainability.
Being able to grow trees over time. (Of course, in order to do that you
also need to be able to grow mycorrhizal fungi, especially
ectomycorrhizal fungi for most trees. For example, Douglas fir is
presumed mycorrhizal with at least 3,000 species of fungi. Only 40-50 of
these have been cultivated that I can find references to. And most of
them I have grown myself. Some people would say that's a lot. But I keep
looking at the ratio of cultivated to non-cultivated, and can't help but
say there's a lot to be learned here.)
> Part of the problem with this discussion is that no-one has really
> defined what we are talking about, and then we rush headlong, figuring that everyone has
> the same point of view.
> Bob McA
Daniel B. Wheeler

Sent via
Before you buy.

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list