Planting spruce as a souce of fuel

locky76

I've been considering buying a bit of land to plant with timber as a source of fuel, a bit of boggy land locally went recently for €2,200 an acre.
My plan goes as follows:
Buy 5 acres and plant with sitka spruce.
Draw down the grant to get it planted (€20k) by greenbelt or someone like that.
Use the annual grant of €850 to buy thinnings from other plantations for the first 12 years to use as fuel to heat the house.
Start thinning by hand then on an annual basis in the summer.
Having talked to people in the industry I would imagine that you could get 25 years (37 years after initial planting) of timber if you were reasonable with your level of thinning before needing to replant.
You could then replant again and let the cycle continue.
Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated.

Birdnuts

For firewood I would go with Alder or Willow rather then spruce in this situation. Spruce in my experiece can have a higher % moisture then hardwoods which makes for poorer firewood.

Good loser

Ash might be a better choice or ash/spruce admixture if ash grows well on similar land in vicinity.

Birdnuts

Birch is another option

reverenddave

eucalyptus is VERY fast growing from planting 5-6foot tall trees you can start cutting in as little as 6 years but you will need to constantly replant


sweet chestnut and most willows are very easy to coppice
cut tree about 2-3 feet from ground
you will have timber in about 8 years
you wont need to replant not in this life time at least

alternatively you could plant a selection of trees
if you buy 5 acres
plant
1 eucalyptus harvest in 6 years
1 sweet chestnut harvest in 8-9 years
1 willow harvest in 8-9 years and every 2-3 years after for up to 50 years
1 sequoia harvest in about 15 years
1 sessile oak(Quercus Petrea) harvest in 20 years
or Quercus Macrocarpa

Birdnuts

reverenddave wrote: »

eucalyptus is VERY fast growing from planting 5-6foot tall trees you can start cutting in as little as 6 years but you will need to constantly replant


sweet chestnut and most willows are very easy to coppice
cut tree about 2-3 feet from ground
you will have timber in about 8 years
you wont need to replant not in this life time at least

alternatively you could plant a selection of trees
if you buy 5 acres
plant
1 eucalyptus harvest in 6 years
1 sweet chestnut harvest in 8-9 years
1 willow harvest in 8-9 years and every 2-3 years after for up to 50 years
1 sequoia harvest in about 15 years
1 sessile oak(Quercus Petrea) harvest in 20 years
or Quercus Macrocarpa

Some good suggestions there but I'd be a bit wary of Eucalyptus since its very prone to frost damage and many trees I've seen near here have been badly damaged by the last 2 winters:(

reverenddave

didnt know that

i have 11
eucs planted around the place oldest 35 yrs

youngest about 4
none of mine got damaged and i'm very open to the elements here

tho most of mine were imported from seed so mabe hardier varities

Birdnuts

reverenddave wrote: »

didnt know that

i have 11
eucs planted around the place oldest 35 yrs

youngest about 4
none of mine got damaged and i'm very open to the elements here

tho most of mine were imported from seed so mabe hardier varities

You might get away with it if your by the coast or on a southern facing hill - but valley bottoms and other frost hollows are a big no no for this species. Coillte have some sort of an experimental plot near here(Manor Kilbride) and the last 2 winters have basically killed 90% of the trees:(

reverenddave

ha Im on a south facing coastal slope :-)


got lucky with that then

greenfingers89

reverenddave wrote: »

if you buy 5 acres
plant
1 eucalyptus harvest in 6 years
1 sweet chestnut harvest in 8-9 years
1 willow harvest in 8-9 years and every 2-3 years after for up to 50 years
1 sequoia harvest in about 15 years
1 sessile oak(Quercus Petrea) harvest in 20 years
or Quercus Macrocarpa

number of issues here, as was mentioned eucalyptus is seriously frost prone and it also requires a massive amount of nutrients and will need extensive fertiliser in the longterm, it probably wouldnt grow on poor boggy ground which is what op is on about buying

sequoia (coast redwood) forget about it because again boggy ground aint suitable...same with sweet chesnut, highly unlikely to do very well on a commercial basis.

if its relatively fertile (lots of strong rush) bog then pedunculate oak might have some chance but im not so sure about sessile.

willow will grow fine but again it requires nutrient rich soil to be highly productive (trees are only as good as the ground they are planted in)

and MOST importantly, willow and eucalyptus arn't even on the approved species list so theres no grant for them. not a hope of getting permission from the forest service to put sequoia on poor bog and probably not sweet chesnut either imo....no permission = no grant

if its something in the region of €2200 per acre then the fact of the matter is you will be very limited in your species choice, not that i have a particular love for them but spruce and pine are more than likely your best option.

and whatever you do never buy land without getting the approval for grant first!

greenfingers89

Birdnuts wrote: »

Birch is another option

not on approved species list for grant aid

greenfingers89

locky76 wrote: »

I would imagine that you could get 25 years (37 years after initial planting) of timber if you were reasonable with your level of thinning before needing to replant.
You could then replant again and let the cycle continue.
Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated.

id say in this situation you'd be better off clearing a few areas of lets say quarter acre when the plantation is approx 25 years, replant then ...4 or 5 years later clear a few more areas and replant....4 or 5 years later again

you'll end up with a constant supply instead of like you say clear at 37 and start again

Birdnuts

greenfingers89 wrote: »

not on approved species list for grant aid

Thats rather odd - on what basis do the dept come to that deceision since I've seen a good few plantions in the midlands with birch growing well on boggy ground

greenfingers89

Birdnuts wrote: »

Thats rather odd - on what basis do the dept come to that deceision since I've seen a good few plantions in the midlands with birch growing well on boggy ground

yes its a strange one but there ya go... feckin sequoia, southern beech, lime and red oak are all on it! not that i have a problem with that but i def think birch and italian alder should be on it

locky76

Cheers greenfingers89, the advice about the grant approval before purchase we hadn't considered. Also going with pine or spruce i think makes the most sense as i don't fancy having to do any more work than necessary, they seem to be a stick it in the ground and come back 20 years later type of species, right up my street.
I'm leaning towards a graduated thinning process as my in laws have a similar plantation from 40 years ago and they're still thinning out of it, granted the trees are aroung 50 feet high at this stage.

greenfingers89 wrote: »

number of issues here, as was mentioned eucalyptus is seriously frost prone and it also requires a massive amount of nutrients and will need extensive fertiliser in the longterm, it probably wouldnt grow on poor boggy ground which is what op is on about buying

sequoia (coast redwood) forget about it because again boggy ground aint suitable...same with sweet chesnut, highly unlikely to do very well on a commercial basis.

if its relatively fertile (lots of strong rush) bog then pedunculate oak might have some chance but im not so sure about sessile.

willow will grow fine but again it requires nutrient rich soil to be highly productive (trees are only as good as the ground they are planted in)

and MOST importantly, willow and eucalyptus arn't even on the approved species list so theres no grant for them. not a hope of getting permission from the forest service to put sequoia on poor bog and probably not sweet chesnut either imo....no permission = no grant

if its something in the region of €2200 per acre then the fact of the matter is you will be very limited in your species choice, not that i have a particular love for them but spruce and pine are more than likely your best option.

and whatever you do never buy land without getting the approval for grant first!

Rovi

Birdnuts wrote: »

Thats rather odd - on what basis do the dept come to that deceision since I've seen a good few plantions in the midlands with birch growing well on boggy ground

Birch grows all by itself on the bogs around here.

Birdnuts

Rovi wrote: »

Birch grows all by itself on the bogs around here.

All the more reason to encourage it in these situations since its obviously suited to such sites - I also see it planted with alder in similiar sites to the one the OP has mentioned.

greenfingers89

i suppose the difference with birch growing itself in bogs is in a lot of these situations it hasn't got much potential to produce good quality commercial timber and therefore if it got a decent afforestation grant it could end up being very expensive firewood...don't get me wrong it should still be on the grant list imo, however im not so sure if birch should be favoured over spruce or pine on peaty sites.
there is a big difference between a tree surviving and thriving

Birdnuts

greenfingers89 wrote: »

i suppose the difference with birch growing itself in bogs is in a lot of these situations it hasn't got much potential to produce good quality commercial timber and therefore if it got a decent afforestation grant it could end up being very expensive firewood...don't get me wrong it should still be on the grant list imo, however im not so sure if birch should be favoured over spruce or pine on peaty sites.
there is a big difference between a tree surviving and thriving

I think you can make the arguement both ways - I've seen plenty of good specimen birch in boggy areas in the midlands and in damp river valleys in other parts of the country. It depends on what wind class the site is in. Also birch is likely to withstand prolonged inundation in heavily waterlogged sites much better then many softwoods. I guess it all depends on the exact nature of the piece of land our friend intends to plant.

Yi Harr

Depending on what kind of boiler/burner you're planning on using you could under plant with Miscanthus or some other bioenergy crop so you'll have a return in the first few years.

You should look up the calorific values of your prospective trees too. In comparison to ash and alder and other broadleaves, spruce has quite a low calorific value and isn't really that good as a fuel. It also tends to spark a lot. Pine is slightly better but still not as good as broadleaf wood.

Of the broadleaves ash would be the best and will burn well when green. Alder burns relatively well as does oak. Eucalyptus has quite a high resin/oil content so can clog up burners and flues.

AFAIK if you apply for grants you will also need to have a forester sign off on all subsequent silvicultural activites such as tending, thinning and roading etc.

COFORD have done quite a lot of research into firewood and processing/seasoning techniques. Most of it is on the net as pdf's such as:

Producing firewood from conifer 1st thinnings

Storage and seasoning of conifer and broadleaf firewood

greenfingers89

Yi Harr wrote: »

Miscanthus or some other bioenergy crop.

ash and other broadleaves,

as does oak. Eucalyptus

AFAIK if you apply for grants you will also need to have a forester sign off on all subsequent silvicultural activites such as tending, thinning and roading etc.

whilst you're correct with your information do you not think op should be considering what will grow before he worries about calorific values? if you can get any of the above to grow commercially on boggy land valued at €2200 per acre then i'd buy that land tomorrow!

i dont see the drawback of using a forester/company... but anyway he wouldn't need one for tending or thinning and probably wouldn't bother with a road on 5 acres

greenfingers89

Birdnuts wrote: »

I think you can make the arguement both ways -

yes it is site specific in most cases i suppose.....

[/QUOTE] It depends on what wind class the site is in[/QUOTE]

....just out of curiosity do you think birch would be better on exposed sites? would you not just thin slightly earlier and more frequent? or not at all?

Birdnuts

greenfingers89 wrote: »

yes it is site specific in most cases i suppose.....

It depends on what wind class the site is in[/QUOTE]

....just out of curiosity do you think birch would be better on exposed sites? would you not just thin slightly earlier and more frequent? or not at all?[/QUOTE]

Well theres exposed and exposed(having lived near Belmullet for a few years;))- every site has to be judged on its merits and obviously the higher the exposure to wind the more pruning/maintaineance. I wouldn't recommend birch in coastal North Mayo for example. However as i stated earlier I do beleive birch and alder have significant advantages over softwoods for the purposes of the OP on lowlying boggy/waterlogged ground over the majority of windclasses in this country.

Yi Harr

greenfingers89 wrote: »

whilst you're correct with your information do you not think op should be considering what will grow before he worries about calorific values?

i dont see the drawback of using a forester/company... but anyway he wouldn't need one for tending or thinning and probably wouldn't bother with a road on 5 acres

If the OP is looking to get grants then species selection will fall under the remit of the forester. If, as the OP stated, he's looking to grow firewood then surely that (calorific value) should be a main criteria for selection from a list of suitable species?

I don't see any drawbacks with using a forester either, in fact I would recommend it. It he OP is planning on applying for grants then he will have to employ a forester to write up the environmental sensitivity statements etc. Also, if thinning, a felling licence will be required which afaik has to be signed off on by a forester.

locky76

Yi Harr wrote: »

If the OP is looking to get grants then species selection will fall under the remit of the forester. If, as the OP stated, he's looking to grow firewood then surely that (calorific value) should be a main criteria for selection from a list of suitable species?

I don't see any drawbacks with using a forester either, in fact I would recommend it. It he OP is planning on applying for grants then he will have to employ a forester to write up the environmental sensitivity statements etc. Also, if thinning, a felling licence will be required which afaik has to be signed off on by a forester.

Yi Harr thanks for the good info. The previous attachments are very useful, i'll be gfoing down the forester route and whatever other stricture the deptartment want to put on me as long as i get the €175 per acre for 20 years and the €4,000 planting & maintainace grant.
The calorific value is indeed important however i am of the view that with 5 acres even with a low calorific value i will still have loads to chuck into the stove, i suppose the jist of what i'm trying to say is that i'm looking for a maintainance free species of tree and from my limited knowledge spruce and/or pine fall into this category.
After your recommendations however and subject to further research i will be leaning towards the pine.
Greenfingers89, the site itself is heavy but not overly so, there's silage cut out of it every year.

greenfingers89

locky76 wrote: »

The calorific value is indeed important however i am of the view that with 5 acres even with a low calorific value i'm looking for a maintainance free species of tree and from my limited knowledge spruce and/or pine fall into this category.
After your recommendations however and subject to further research i will be leaning towards the pine.
Greenfingers89, the site itself is heavy but not overly so, there's silage cut out of it every year.

i think its best for your situation to go with the softwood, even though i completly acept other people may argue differently. however id strongly reccommend sitka spruce over pine, seen as you say the ground is decent(in forestry terms) spruce will give you a better yield and far less branching...

where abouts is the land? (guessing limerick? or further away?)

by the way the grant scheme will require at least 10% deciduous within the grant area and if you wanted you could push that up to 20% as a mini experiment, the forester you get will advise you im sure

greenfingers89

Yi Harr wrote: »

felling licence will be required which afaik has to be signed off on by a forester.

you dont need a forester at all to get a felling licence, it doesnt cost you a bob

MOSSAD

You say it's boggy-does that mean peaty? Will you have a so-called acid sensitive issue there? Check that out.
Grow a fair bit of eucalyptus here- anything in prolonged shade last winter was killed or severely damaged so be mindful of that. Spruce sounds like a safe bet but go for more than a 20% diverse mix if you can-larch, western red cedar, western hemlock, italian alder, birch, scots pine, even some southern beech (nothofagus).
As for getting a forestry copmpany to do it-I recommend you do it yourself- not too much hassle to get an experienced machine operator in, and get the inspector to show you ahow to plant- no harm getting him back onto the coalface again- and pocket the extra. Best thing is to get an approved forester who will take 10% for drawing up and making the application and getting the work done, he'll see it thru' to year 4 and get it passed for the second installment, and take percentage of that grant payment.
There's also something to be said for actually getting seriously involved with creating your own plantation. Best of luck.
PS with respect to the approved species list, which has about 40 odd trees listed, this list can be severely reduced based on soil, elevation, aspect and how close to the coast you are.

greenfingers89

MOSSAD wrote: »

species list, which has about 40 odd trees listed, this list can be severely reduced based on soil, elevation, aspect and how close to the coast you are.

hear hear, majority of sites start off with no more than 4 or 5 suitable species, another 2 or 3 could possibly be stuck in as minor species

mossad do you not think op would be better off sticking to a relatively straightforward species selection i.e just the two species? seen as its only 5 acres? if it was 50 acres i wouldn't be as worried about sticking in 4 or 5 different blocks... and seen as hes doing the work himself, he would avoid complicating it with different species perhaps requiring different fertiliser (seen as its a marginal site)

also i know you're well qualified to mention the acid sensitivity! any luck with your own situation?

the reason i ask the op where is the land is because it popped into my head that.....if it was good enough to cut silage off it (i know that doesnt mean its by any means great) then im a little surprised by €2200 per acre......leads me to believe there is a hidden issue here i.e acid sensitive, hen harrier, pearl mussel etc etc

again i'll repeat...never NEVER purchase land for planting without getting the technical approval from the department first

MOSSAD

Just concerned about spate of new diseases appearing, from Phytopthera to Melamsporidium on alder.Thinking of maybe 200 of each grouped here and there.
No luck on the acid sensitivity charade-and doubt change coming from the new inspector in chief of the forest service- why rock the boat, and anyway I'd expect more initiative from a swarm of midges-in my opinion he's not exactly an enlightened choice....
I must say the EPA did tell me that I am responsible for looking after the water quality coming from my own site, therefore I lose €120000 in headage over 20 years and at least €200000 in timber value. I wonder if I could demand compensation...perhaps Mr Bowman might donate some of his pension if and when he retires, which cant be too soon....Thanks for asking!
Excellent point on the land price and the advice re the department. The Limerick inspector is pretty well respected and is one of the few who knows how to thoughtfully and sensibly exercise his discretion.He was inspector here in the 70s and it's a relief to have him back in caretaker mode in Clare following the catastrophic regime of his predecessor.

greenfingers89

MOSSAD wrote: »

I'd expect more initiative from a swarm of midges-in my opinion he's not exactly an enlightened choice....

brilliant!!!!

locky76

the land is at a small price as it doesn't have the critical mass to attract new buyers in and the people bounding the land aren't interested. It's in corcus land where the land was divided to people from three or four parishes in the locality. The land looks fine to me, a little heavy but grows grass well.

greenfingers89 wrote: »

hear hear, majority of sites start off with no more than 4 or 5 suitable species, another 2 or 3 could possibly be stuck in as minor species

mossad do you not think op would be better off sticking to a relatively straightforward species selection i.e just the two species? seen as its only 5 acres? if it was 50 acres i wouldn't be as worried about sticking in 4 or 5 different blocks... and seen as hes doing the work himself, he would avoid complicating it with different species perhaps requiring different fertiliser (seen as its a marginal site)

also i know you're well qualified to mention the acid sensitivity! any luck with your own situation?

the reason i ask the op where is the land is because it popped into my head that.....if it was good enough to cut silage off it (i know that doesnt mean its by any means great) then im a little surprised by €2200 per acre......leads me to believe there is a hidden issue here i.e acid sensitive, hen harrier, pearl mussel etc etc

again i'll repeat...never NEVER purchase land for planting without getting the technical approval from the department first