[saf-news] The Fundamental Forestry Dispute

truffler1635 at my-deja.com truffler1635 at my-deja.com
Tue Sep 26 08:28:28 EST 2000


In article <39C74B1C.23EB72CA at daviesand.com>,
  Karl Davies <karl at daviesand.com> wrote:
>
> --------------D34ABF2AD0430178A27CCC26
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Joseph Zorzin wrote:
>
> > Tom Giesen wrote:
> >
> >> I recently posted brief excerpts from "Simplified Forest Management
> >> to
> >> Achieve Watershed and Forest Health: A Critique"  by The Scientific
> >> Panel
> >> on Ecosystem Management:   Jerry Franklin, David Perry, Reed Noss,
> >> David
> >> Montgomery, and Christopher Frissell (NWF, 2000).
> >
> > Tom, this report, produced by the National Wildlife Federation, is a
> > masterpiece- several orders of magnitude better thinking that the
> > usual intellectual trivia pumped out in SAF position papers, the
> > AF&PA, other industry propaganda arms, and such utterly psychotic
> > academic lunacy such as the Harvard Forest's "Thinking in Forest
> > Time". It represents forestry policies rooted in ecological thinking
> > of the highest order. Tom, do you work for the NWA?? If so, I'd
> > suggest that the document also be published online in HTML format,
> > which would make it easier to read, since .pdf (Acrobat) files- well,
> > they suck. <G> So, I printed it, then took notes.
>
> Now if we could prove that eco-forestry is not only better ecologically,
> but also better FINANCIALLY, the dispute would be over.  My hunch is
> that it is better financially when you include values for ecosystem
> services, and when you properly account for grade and market value
> increases on residual trees...which the brain-dead forestry
> establishment is incapable of doing because it would undercut the
> rationale for publicly subsidized burros, and because it would undercut
> one of the main selling points of indos: cut those slow-growing trees
> and put the money somewhere else.
>
> KD
>
[snip]

I believe that mycorrhizal and saprophytic fungal cultivation in tree
stands can achieve that financial security. But it is extremely labor
intensive, and not everyone is either interested in learning, or capable
of doing the work.

Basically, any fairly straight piece of wood without side branches and
free of major damage can be used to grow mushrooms on. The best diameter
"bedlogs" are small-diameter, typically those thown on the slash pile or
sometimes used for firewood: 2-12" diameter are ideal, length can vary
from 20-44 inches.

Saprophytic fungi with proven market value are inoculated onto these
"bedlogs" and begin fruiting within 6 months to 1.5 years. They will
continue to fruit approximately twice a year (up to 5 times a year in
controlled-environment greenhouse/fruiting rooms) for every inch-
diameter. Thus a 12-inch diameter bedlog should produce 24 flushes; a 6-
inch diameter bedlog 12 flushes, a 2 inch bedlog 4 flushes. The majority
of the mushrooms produced will occur in the first 3 years of fruiting.

These saprophytic (wood-eating) fungi can be: at least 8 species of
Pleurotus (oyster mushrooms), Lentinulla edodes (shiitake), Hericium
erinaceus (Goat's Beard, Bear's head), Grifola frondosa (Hen of the
Woods), Sparassis radicata (Cauliflower mushroom), Hericium abietis (Fir
hericium), Hericium coralloides (Coral hericium), Auricularia platyphylla
(Tree Ear, Mu Ehr), Laetiporus sulphureus (Chicken of the Woods),
Ganoderma lucidum (Ling Zhi, Herb of 10,000 Days), and several other
species. These fungi are used as food, medicine, reduce cholesterol
levels, activate the immune system, and have potent anti-cancerous
compounds.

While the term "bedlog" is used typically in mushroom cultivation, they
can often be from cut branches. Almost any species of hardwood can be
used, although individual species will produce more or less of any given
fungal species. A _very few_ conifer species can also be used.

It is also my belief that symbiotic fungi (fungi which assist tree growth
in a symbiotic or mutually beneficial relationship) also are mostly
ignored in current forest practices. These fungi include the most
expensive fungi in the world today: truffles, Boletes, Hedgehogs,
chanterelles, matsutake, etc. Some of these, such as truffles and
matsutake, have already been demonstrated to be equal or greater than the
value of their host trees for lumber on a yearly basis.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.






More information about the Ag-forst mailing list