Jim Webster  writes
>
>which is why agriculture developed in the first place, it is far faster and 
>easier to plant the crop you want to eat where it is easy to get at than 
>wander round the countryside trying to find odd plants here and there 

The same applies to animals.

More importantly, when resources become scarce (due population
explosion) you can own and protect your bit of food on your bit of land
from other people.

-- 
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 00:13:30 +0000, Derek Moody
 wrote:

>In article , Tim Lamb
><URL:mailto:tim@marford.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article , Oz
>>  writes
>> >Jim Webster  writes
>> >>
>> >>which is why agriculture developed in the first place, it is far faster and 
>> >>easier to plant the crop you want to eat where it is easy to get at than 
>> >>wander round the countryside trying to find odd plants here and there 
>> >
>> >The same applies to animals.
>> >
>> >More importantly, when resources become scarce (due population
>> >explosion) you can own and protect your bit of food on your bit of land
>> >from other people.
>> 
>> Just supposing there was some factual element in the assertion that more
>> (quantity) life sustaining produce can be achieved by permanent
>> planting.....
>
>In the short term it has to be worse as the plant must devote more resources
>to 'infrastructure' deeper roots, stronger stems and branches.
>
>Over the lifetime of the plant this proportion must decrease - by how much
>must depend on species, variety, climate and a host of other factors.  In
>some cases it may well catch up and pass the annuals - orchards & vineyards
>remain productive for a long time, but then there is a drop off as problems
>accrue.

You don't actually know do you? Please don't try and mislead people,
if you don't know just say something like *I reckon*!

>> Are there any studies to support this? Pearl is not usually reticent in
>> posting sources.
>
>I expect she'll paste something.

The history of the world is in the written word. Since when has it
become a dirty word?

>> I assume fruit and nuts must form a significant part of this production
>> and wonder if Pearl has any direct knowledge of yield fluctuations
>> caused by weather, time from planting to full yield, need to replace as
>> trees age, pest and disease impact.....
>
>She certainly isn't planning on pest control.  Within a season or two the
>build up will be enough to impact the crop and vastly reduce any keeping
>quality.  

Rubbish. Surely you're not suggesting man has survived since time
began using pesticides/herbicides?

Man is usually quite happy to accept 70%/80% of a crop and call it
successful. Wildlife in most forms impact much less than the % left
and we are happy to share the difference with our fellow inhabitants.

Squeezing the last ounce out of agriculture is what has ruined the
planet and gained very little.









--

My greatest speech to the peasants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em7LWuP0T7Q

pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@urfreesim.co.uk



England / Angelic Upstarts 

The red in the flag is the blood that was spilt
In the way that your forefathers tell
And never a country has been so great
The stories Britannia could tell 

I never want to live my life
Away from the golden shores
There's never a country in the world
With the scent of an English rose 

England oh England a country so great
A land that's so fair and so true
There'll never be any colours like
The red the white and the blue 

Whenever you go to a far off land
There's something goes with you
The pride and the joy and the love that comes
For your mother of red white and blue 

You could never be born under a flag that's like
The one of the Union Jack
St.Georges spirit has never died
It all keeps coming back

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:41:55 +0000, Oz  wrote:

>Tim Lamb  writes
>
>>Just supposing there was some factual element in the assertion that more
>>(quantity) life sustaining produce can be achieved by permanent
>>planting.....
>>
>>Are there any studies to support this? Pearl is not usually reticent in
>>posting sources.
>
>You waste your time replying to pearl, she is stupid and ignorant.

Manages to put you and the other pro hunt village idiots to shame.

>Of food crops I know of none 

But then you never were much of a farmer, or even a member of society
were you!


<snip desperate cut and paste>







--

My greatest speech to the peasants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em7LWuP0T7Q

pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@urfreesim.co.uk



England / Angelic Upstarts 

The red in the flag is the blood that was spilt
In the way that your forefathers tell
And never a country has been so great
The stories Britannia could tell 

I never want to live my life
Away from the golden shores
There's never a country in the world
With the scent of an English rose 

England oh England a country so great
A land that's so fair and so true
There'll never be any colours like
The red the white and the blue 

Whenever you go to a far off land
There's something goes with you
The pride and the joy and the love that comes
For your mother of red white and blue 

You could never be born under a flag that's like
The one of the Union Jack
St.Georges spirit has never died
It all keeps coming back

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:55:32 +0000, Tim Lamb 
wrote:

>The mature Cobb and Hazel bushes in our garden

I thought cob was a hazel cultivar? What about the walnut?

AJH

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:56:42 -0000, "Jill" 
wrote:

>Oz wrote:
>> Tim Lamb  writes
>>> I guess fruiting trees could be grown on some of Jim's marginal land
>>
>> I very much doubt it, particularly if you want some yield.
>
>and certainly not up hereabouts unless you spend a great deal creating 
>walled gardens and other such but then you are back into man management !
>
>>
>>> displacing a few head of cattle and sheep but depth of soil and
>>> harvesting issues might limit more than Pearl has considered.
>>
>> Not to mention salty subsoil...
>
>and salty air
>and gross leaching
>and

We can see why you need an out of town supermarket! Do you tie your
own shoe laces yet? Don't worry if it comes to it the veggies will
look after you!









--

My greatest speech to the peasants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em7LWuP0T7Q

pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@urfreesim.co.uk



England / Angelic Upstarts 

The red in the flag is the blood that was spilt
In the way that your forefathers tell
And never a country has been so great
The stories Britannia could tell 

I never want to live my life
Away from the golden shores
There's never a country in the world
With the scent of an English rose 

England oh England a country so great
A land that's so fair and so true
There'll never be any colours like
The red the white and the blue 

Whenever you go to a far off land
There's something goes with you
The pride and the joy and the love that comes
For your mother of red white and blue 

You could never be born under a flag that's like
The one of the Union Jack
St.Georges spirit has never died
It all keeps coming back

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:48:10 -0000, "Jim Webster"
 wrote:

>>> Why, is it particularly good for firewood?

Sycamore has the lowest moisture content next to ash, it also dries
easily.
>>>
>>
>> In my experience, sycamore is a nuisance :).. I once fenced with
>> sycamore posts when I ran out of proper fencing posts, all had to be
>> replaaced the next year. 

It is also very perishable, most or possibly all of the whitewoods
are, dark heartwood implies more lignin and tyloses filling vessels.

>>Sycamore will spread like lightning if land
>> is not ploughed or grazed.
>>

Yes it is both a good pioneer and shade tolerant.

>absolutely, but it does grow well here and burns OK.
>I think it had traditional uses but I cannot for the life of me remember 
>what they were

Treen, carved utensils and containers, because it doesn't taint food.

AJH

AJH  writes
>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:48:10 -0000, "Jim Webster" <jim@websterpagebank.frees
>werve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> Why, is it particularly good for firewood?
>
>Sycamore has the lowest moisture content next to ash, it also dries easily.

A good spec for a firewood I would say.

>>> In my experience, sycamore is a nuisance :).. I once fenced with
>>> sycamore posts when I ran out of proper fencing posts, all had to be
>>> replaaced the next year. 
>
>It is also very perishable, most or possibly all of the whitewoods are, dark 
>heartwood implies more lignin and tyloses filling vessels.

Is there a definition for a whitewood? After all oak and beech are quite
white when fresh.

-- 
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

"AJH"  wrote in message 
news:tp3fo310le1jimq52b8e4bcrgr9repceh6@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:48:10 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>  wrote:
>
>>>> Why, is it particularly good for firewood?
>
> Sycamore has the lowest moisture content next to ash, it also dries
> easily.

it certainly does, it can burn too fast if left too long!


>>>>
>>>
>>> In my experience, sycamore is a nuisance :).. I once fenced with
>>> sycamore posts when I ran out of proper fencing posts, all had to be
>>> replaaced the next year.
>
> It is also very perishable, most or possibly all of the whitewoods
> are, dark heartwood implies more lignin and tyloses filling vessels.
>
>>>Sycamore will spread like lightning if land
>>> is not ploughed or grazed.
>>>
>
> Yes it is both a good pioneer and shade tolerant.
>
>>absolutely, but it does grow well here and burns OK.
>>I think it had traditional uses but I cannot for the life of me remember
>>what they were
>
> Treen, carved utensils and containers, because it doesn't taint food.
>

I always found it a pleasant looking wood for that sort of thing.
Is it rippled scyamore that is worth a fortune for venier

Jim Webster

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:50:52 +0000, Oz wrote:

> Is there a definition for a whitewood? After all oak and beech are quite
> white when fresh.

In the trade I suspect it's limited to beech, sycamore and lime plus some
minor species like aesculus and hornbeam. popular, birch and will are
also white but not in the same trade.

Conifers are a different class but spruce and hemlock were preferred when
whiteness was an issue. This is also why the chipboard trade didn't like
larch, it darkened the board.

Oak and sweet chestnut have dark heartwood because of the tannis and
other chemicals that fill the vessels to impart rot resistance, yew, larch
and douglas are similar.

AJH

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:45:52 +0000, Jim Webster wrote:

> Is it rippled scyamore that is worth a fortune for venier

Yes also known as fiddleback for obvious reasons. This veneer trade was
exceptional and mostly syscamore was for planking for bread an butter
uses, we used to sell it to a sawmill in nidd valley, beyond the pale of
civilised life. I used to fell veneer sycamore for a polish bloke, to him
a tree meant nothing unless it was veneer quality and he would
"investigate" suitable trees before offering for them, to the future
detriment of the tree!

Oak, walnut (which I have never sold) and yew were the staples of the
veneer trade.

AJH

andrew heggie  writes
>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:50:52 +0000, Oz wrote:
>
>> Is there a definition for a whitewood? After all oak and beech are quite
>> white when fresh.
>
>In the trade I suspect it's limited to beech, sycamore and lime plus some 
>minor species like aesculus and hornbeam. popular, birch and will are also 
>white but not in the same trade.

Ash?

>Conifers are a different class but spruce and hemlock were preferred when 
>whiteness was an issue. This is also why the chipboard trade didn't like 
>larch, it darkened the board.
>
>Oak and sweet chestnut have dark heartwood because of the tannis and other 
>chemicals that fill the vessels to impart rot resistance, yew, larch and 
>douglas are similar.

Ok, so heart of oak would be separated our and used differently from the
rest?

-- 
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:30:17 +0000, Oz wrote:

> As an example we know about hickory hammer/axe handles, but what was the
> english equivalent?

Ash but it is not as hard or strong as hickory but is more supple and
shock absorbant. Some specialist hammers (wheel tappers was one) use holly
handles because it acted more like a dead head hammer, transmitting a good
impulse. Holly was also used for snooker cues but the only time I sent
some in I never got paid.

AJH

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:27:13 +0000, Oz wrote:

> andrew heggie  writes
>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:50:52 +0000, Oz wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a definition for a whitewood? After all oak and beech are quite
>>> white when fresh.
>>
>>In the trade I suspect it's limited to beech, sycamore and lime plus some 
>>minor species like aesculus and hornbeam. popular, birch and will are also 
>>white but not in the same trade.
> 
> Ash?

White ash is sort after but it wasn't used for the same things as the
other white woods, possibly because it split when mortised. Possibly
because it was too dear, ash fetched more than oak in the 30-50cms
diameter class when I started, it was used for hammer handles and sports
goods (cricket stumps by a firm in croydon was one, hurley sticks is
still a market). The hammer handle trade was killed off by a steel
strike in the late 70s after which finished hammers were imported. The
big user by me was gravity randall for ladder rungs, the stiles were
imported douglas fir, with the bark on, this became a phytosanitary
issue.The common white woods were used for framing, settees, cupboards
etc. Ercol were amongst the last millers of furniture grade beech and
people like harris brush were the non premium users.
> 

>>Oak and sweet chestnut have dark heartwood because of the tannis and
>>other chemicals that fill the vessels to impart rot resistance, yew,
>>larch and douglas are similar.
> 
> Ok, so heart of oak would be separated our and used differently from the
> rest?

AFAIK there were no structural uses for oak sapwood which was one of the
reasons oak had to be in fairly large dimensions before it was millable.
Where the sapwood was left on it would have just rotted away from the
structural part in time. Chestnut was much better yield in this respect as
it has essentially only one ring of sapwood but it was never really
appreciated by homegrown millers.

AJH

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:48:22 +0000, andrew heggie wrote:

> White ash is sort

Arrgh        ^^^^^^^ sought

AJH

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:43:02 +0000, Oz wrote:

>>Ash but it is not as hard or strong as hickory but is more supple and shock 
>>absorbant. 
> 
> Ok, so hickory wins hands down then.

Probably but there are caveats, one is that you're more likely to shatter
a hickory handle, another is that it must be cut from larger trees than
would traditionally be used in UK (handles were generally cleft not sawn).
so there is a higher instance of cross grain. Jim mentioned ripple
sycamore, well I have seen this in a hickory handle and I broke it quite
quickly (the figure was so nice I whittled a welsh spoon from it) and
replaced it with a green ash handle I hewed to size.

AJH

Oz wrote:
> andrew heggie  writes
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:50:52 +0000, Oz wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a definition for a whitewood? After all oak and beech are quite
>>> white when fresh.
>> In the trade I suspect it's limited to beech, sycamore and lime plus some 
>> minor species like aesculus and hornbeam. popular, birch and will are also 
>> white but not in the same trade.
> 
> Ash?
> 


yes, lovely pale wood, good for furniture.


-- 
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

andrew heggie  writes
>
>AFAIK there were no structural uses for oak sapwood which was one of the 
>reasons oak had to be in fairly large dimensions before it was millable. 
>Where the sapwood was left on it would have just rotted away from the 
>structural part in time.

Yes, but it still takes quite a long time.

Quite a bit of oak in our old buildings, with a very soft (and
woodwormy) outer bit and a concrete-hard inside.

Bastard for nailing, screwing or even drilling.

-- 
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.