Site Discussions

Just for reference, we have found ticks on us, or our dogs, every month of the year except January and February.

Thanks for taking a special interest in Maine.  I have been on the roads here for 37 years and still find surprises around every bend.  May it always be so. You asked what your readers are up to so I will give you a brief snap shot of my time. 

I am an arborist in the Blue Hill area.  In my work, I meet folks at all levels of social strata. Having learned about the invasions of plant pests and diseases, I try to educate my contacts about their effects on their trees and the larger consequences on our forest community.  There is an active movement in Maine to preserve forest habitat that acts like a rising tide of interest in responsible stewardship.  However, awareness of the potential future onslaught of pests like the Emerald Ash Borer, Asian Longhorned Beetle, and the present incursion of the Hemlock Wooly Adelgid is sorely lacking.

Consequently, I took it upon myself to invite speakers from the U Maine Extension and the Maine Forest Service to talk about invasive plants and insects.  From the conversations I had with some of the attendees, I learned that, although they are very concerned, they were quite unaware of the potential scope of the looming disaster.  Word of Wooster has not yet made an impact here.  I just hope Blue Hill and other communities in Maine do not have to go through the same agony Wooster did with the ALB.  Unless we somehow raise awareness of the problem, it seems our fate is sealed.

Here is where you come in.  As an educational organization, please think about ways to reach more folks in our New England forest region to educate them about invasives.  I have one suggestion that I submitted some months ago to Northern Woodlands.  We have a wonderful community radio station here, WERU, 89.9.  You can easily find their booth at the CG Fair.  They are commited to producing shows on public affairs.  Please consider hooking up with them and other community radio stations across New England to produce the magazine or at least features from it on the radio. You will undoubtedly reach an audience already sympathetic to all the issues raised by NW, including invasives.

Thanks again for asking.

Tony Aman

Derek—

I agree with you entirely that turning this thing around is an enormous challenge, and I also share your concern that there isn’t enough grass-fed meat available to feed all 7 billion of us. (Though I’ve never seen a good analysis of this question - have you?)

But all environmentalism is local, so to speak, and we already have small-scale, grass-fed grazing here in northern New England. My farm is a good example. We grow vegetables on every flat acre that we own, pasture sheep on the moderate slopes, and keep the steeps in forest. Since we can’t grow vegetables on the slopes without creating undue soil erosion, the only way for us to realize calories from these acres is through meat. Since we can do this without contributing to climate change, surely we should, no? Especially since doing the opposite - foregoing the sheep and sending folks to the supermarket for vegetable-based protein that doesn’t grow in Vermont, would only be adding to the problem?

In a more theoretical framework, nearly all agriculture prior to the discover of fossil fuel was animal-based. Animals provided power for tillage, fertilizer for the soil, and calories for humans. I’m not sure I can envision a global, post-fossil fuel agriculture that doesn’t return in some way to this model. Industrial vegetable production as it is currently practiced, including organic agriculture, is enormously dependent on fossil fuel. Vegetable protein is more efficient than animal protein only on a per-acre basis; once you look at calories in (fossil) vs. calories out (food), our lowly sheep, wandering around the pasture under their own steam, start to look really good.

—Chuck

Of course, most people simply just need to read the headline—“see, there’s nothing wrong with meat!”—in order carry blissfully on as they were, occasionally grabbing some grass-fed beef from their local Whole Foods, thinking they’re “doing their part”.

The reality is, the demand for meat is so huge—and growing globally—that a return to small-scale, grass-fed animal farming is completely unfeasible, so it doesn’t really matter that local farming of this sort can be sustainable and “closed-loop”. With the global climate in crisis, we simply can’t have our cake—or meat, as it were—and eat it too if we actually care about turning this thing around. (In concert with a plethora of other changes, both institutional and individual, global and local as well.)

The following comments came in while our website was being retooled. We are re-posting them now for the authors.

Chuck: Thanks for writing a thoughtful and informative piece. However, I would like to clarify an important point. In the statement I gave you I also said that if indeed there is a net flux of C to the atmosphere from woody biomass harvesting at landscape scales, it is compensated over time by offset fossil fuel emissions. The time lag over which that offset ultimately exceeds the C debt is currently the subject of intense scrutiny by researchers all over the U.S. and globally, including the Carbon Dynamics Lab here at UVM.

One additional clarification: the position of my quote in the article may be misleading. This statement was a response to the question of whether there is a fundamental difference between what some people are calling “biological carbon” and carbon emissions from fossil fuels. My opinion is that there isn’t if the ultimate concern is the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The source of the carbon is irrelevant as long as more carbon is fluxing to the atmosphere compared to the amount that is being taken out. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Bill Keeton
Burlington, Vermont
________________

I’ve heard much about the so-called ‘carbon neutrality’ of burning our forests to offset our burning of coal. But to claim that somehow improves or reduces CO2 in the atmosphere is insane. CO2 has no memory of how it got there. And to suppose future forests are going to increase/re-sequester the instantly released CO2 from bio-incinerators is so ridiculous a child would know better. Globally, the trend is the elimination of forests, not the reverse. North America once had forests from ocean to ocean. Look at it now! And burning what forests remain isn’t going to improve it. The better use of the underbrush, slash, and ‘rounds’ (young/non-commercial trees) is to allow them to enrich and maintain the forest soils rather than exposing bare soils to winter elements, leaching, erosion, compaction, and reduction of bio-diversity. Bio-incineration is a boondoggle much like corn ethanol was. We can’t get out of the hole we’re in by digging it deeper. We can’t eliminate climate change by burning our forests!

pinbalwyz

__________________

Pinbalwyz… It’s amazing how much you can learn just be observation! Now can we add another factor in here. Non-native invasive species. Weather it be beetle or barberry. If you want to see some great forested areas suffering from non-native invasives, stop down into Massachusetts! Very slow to no tree regeneration in in hot spots. We sometimes hear about the “tipping point.” The point in which we may let these species encroach, proliferate, and gain a strong foothold. The seed is there. If it’s not… someone who doesn’t know will be planting it! Matter of fact, UVM’s “Landscape Plants FOR Vermont” includes barberry and Norway maples! Not very useful biomass in my mind! Those should not even be considered as options! Just because we don’t have problems now… What happens when the Asian longhorn beetle makes it way around? In Massachusetts, there is not enough biomass to be burning. We need as much shade as we can get here! And please stop planting these non-native invasives. It may take a generation or two to see some serious ramifications. ... Isn’t preserving for generations what we want to do?

Paul Cysz

Chuck,
Thank you for a balanced and well written article. As a public policy educator it is a pleasure to read an article that examines a complex issue, like the debate over the role of biomass in our energy future, without spin or sensationalism.  Renewable energy, especially biopower and biofuels, are a major focus of our policy education program at Farm Foundation. Your article is one I will be referring to often.

While I now live outside of Washington, DC I remember planting thousands of pine and spruce seedlings on the eroding hillsides of my family’s dairy farm in central Vermont in the early 1960s, an experience that still reminds me that sustainable systems of farming and forestry don’t happen on their own.

Hi Sandy—

Your points are well taken and get right to the heart of the biomass debate. My goal in writing the article was to try to demonstrate a sense of what was possible and how a future might look if we started utilizing more biomass here in the Northeast. Throughout the article, I assumed that we wouldn’t ever want to cut more wood than was growing in our forests - not touching the capital, as you put it. Except for your home state, which currently cuts nearly all of its annual growth, the other six Northeast states are nowhere close to cutting at that level. As you suggest, cutting so heavily for biomass that we start reducing our overall forest cover would have many detrimental consequences, including the loss of oxygen production/carbon sink that you mentioned.

As an organic vegetable and meat farmer by day, I also agree entirely that we may want some of that ‘marginal’ land back in food production in the future. I certainly hope so. The specifics of the economy at that point - energy prices, property taxes, transportation costs - will help determine whether that land might best be used for food or biomass. It would be nice to have such options!

—Chuck Wooster

I found it a little disturbing that nowhere in the article on biomass as fuel was the value of the standing forest as O2 producer and carbon sink mentioned. It was my understanding of the article that biomass production could be achieved without touching the “capital” forest but until I see more evidence of that I remain skeptical.
And one other comment about marginal farmland. We might need that land for food production as global food become to expensive to access and local food production needs to increase.

Being an observer of the biomass discussion in Massachusetts, it is nice, and rare, to read a relatively unbiased article about biomass utilization in Massachusetts.

The Manomet Study is a remarkable document for something done in 6 months. Since it came out, there have been substantive comments made as part of the public record and it appears these comments will considered and lead to Manomet Study Volume 2.

In Massachusetts, home fuelwood could be a significant factor in the biomass debate.  During the height of the Arab Oil Embargo during the Winter of ‘78-‘79, a New England Fuelwood Survey was done.  The results in Mass. were summarized in Heating with Wood in Massachusetts Households published in l980.  It was based on over 2,800 phone calls.  It found that over 1,000,000 cords were burned.  Using the conversion factor of 2.5 green tons per cord, this converts to 2,500,000 green tons.  Sixty-two percent of this wood was self-cut, over 86% of that was hardwoods, and 65% of respondents cut the wood on their own woodlot.  The bulk of self-cut wood (69%) came from woodlots of 25 acres or less (and probably some commercially sold firewood also came from small woodlots).  The survey found fuelwood use saved 40% more home heating oil consumption than should have been the case.  They attributed it to the “Zone Heating Effect” and the “Timed Thermostat Effect.”  Most wood was burned in wood stoves.  The Zone Heating Effect was when the stove heated up the area around it and other parts of the house were much colder.  The Timed Thermostat Effect was that at night and when folks were not home, the fire would die down and the house would get much cooler.  Note that in those days, programmable thermostats were not common.  The net result of these two effects is that wood stoves (relative to replacing oil heat) can have “efficiencies” of greater than 100% in replacing home heating oil. We should not be surprised, if similar circumstances develop in the future, to see this scale of home wood heating. These circumstances would be high unemployment and high heating oil prices. Because selling firewood can be “under the table”, many unemployed men would prefer to cut and sell fuelwood than help with chores around the house or cut for their own use. When the price of energy increases significantly faster than household income, experience has shown that home fuelwood, either self-cut or purchased, becomes more attractive. 

Biomass for electrical generating is unique in having a horizontal demand curve.  These plants are for baseline electrical production, and the goal is to run them at better than 90% of capacity at all times.  This would appear to be a boon for loggers, who are always looking for a good, steady market.  However, when you overlay the traditional boom and bust sawlog market on top of that, the situation becomes more complex.  Biomass generally gets a free ride out of the woods on the back of sawtimber.  If the market for sawlogs is poor, would the biomass activities tend to flood the market with sawlogs which would further depress the market?  When sawlog markets are strong, and the mills can not get enough, will the need to produce biomass chips prevent a logger from optimizing profits?

As we look ahead, it is comforting to know, if 1978-79 is any guide, that most home fuelwood will be cut from lots that are not considered available for biomass harvesting because they are too small.

We have put together a presentation that rebukes these headlines and makes better sense of issue. You can see it at:
http://biomassfuelssummit.com/epa-biomass-ruling/

While I loved the piece, I was struck by the comment that clubmosses are mostly found “in the cool, shaded environment of the boreal forest.” This is factually incorrect. I have hiked the White, Green, and Adirondack ranges frequently and have actually never seen Lycopodium - my favorite understory plant - beneath boreal forests if I am to assume the definition of boreal is spruce-fir either entirely or intermittently. Rather you are more apt to find this beautiful relic beneath mesic to dry beech, beech-maple, and beech-birch-maple in the aforementioned mountain ranges. This is an important distinction and one your readership should understand if they don’t already. Lycopodium is truly a jewel of New England’s hardwood forests, not its boreal forests.

Just shot some great photos of a female Giant Ichneumon Wasp laying her eggs in a dead Ponderosa Pine tree.

Deer have a tndency to browse.  But I do not think they can bring ginseng to extinction.  If this were the case, they would have done so over the ages which they have been present along with ginseng in the forests.
Ginseng roots of over 50 years of age are still commonly found in nearly every State which harbors a naturally seeding population of the plant.
When the population of ginseng, (as with other resources), reaches a low enough level of diminishng returns, animals and humans alike have a tendency to seek other more promising pursuits.
Ginseng, alog with other understory plants, can readily be incresed by encouraging planting along the same lines that our great Eastern tree forests have been replenished.
Educate we the people, instill a love for nature in us, and we will be eager to do the job!
Fines and penalties will only serve to drive away the otherwise willing.

Responding to Patricia Jaquith’s concerns about chimney swifts and pesticide spraying for West Nile virus:

There are some serious concerns that the decline of chimney swifts is not due just to the loss of suitable chimneys as habitat. Reports that discuss potential reasons for the decline of chimney swifts can be found at http://post.queensu.ca/~groomsc/trends.html and by searching Google for chimney swifts and West Nile virus.

Other insectivorous birds that catch prey on the wing, such as the common nighthawk and whip-poor-will, are also declining. One reason cited is that spraying pesticides could be reducing their food supply, including spraying to kill mosquitoes for West Nile virus control.

Other reasons for the swift’s decline could range from the loss of habitat in wintering grounds to (in the case of chimney swifts) the loss of large chimneys to serve as roosting sites where swifts can congregate during rest stops along their seasonal migration routes.

Chimney swifts could also be accumulating toxins in their systems when they eat insects that contain some level of pesticides in their tissues. This could be a particular problem in the swift’s wintering range where pesticides are more widely used and are applied in higher concentrations.

The decline of chimney swifts in Canada has been particularly steep, with populations dropping overall by about 28 percent during the past 13.5 years (representing 3 generations of swifts).

Ms. Jaquith’s suggestion of increasing swift populations by improving nesting site conditions and availability is an excellent example of proposing biological insect controls as an alternative to the use of toxic chemicals. The questions that arise are:

- How can the word be spread to encourage this kind of solution for chimney swifts, and for all insectivorous birds, especially in light of the decline of little brown bats and all other species of bats that have, prior to this time, consumed large numbers of insects.(Please see the article that I wrote on the Common Nighthawk in the Outside Story archives on the Northern Woodlands website, which was published on Jul 21, 2008 and contains examples of local efforts to create new nighthawk nest sites.)

- And, as always: Who is going to step forward to help chimney swifts by: 1) increasing public awareness of the issues, and 2) starting local campaigns to improve and restore the swifts’ old and existing nesting chimneys, while encouraging the creation of new chimneys where they can nest?

Your truly,

Michael Caduto

Probably not the adelgid, Chip, if you saw white worms. The adelgids are so tiny they’re practically impossible to see with the naked eye, and they’re not worms, really, they’re closer to aphids.

Yes, there is a predator beetle from out west that entomologists hope may help check the population (Laricobius nigrinus). Only time will tell.

Sure, Paul. Happy to have you share the article.

Thank you for this informative post. I’ve always wondered about the logistics of honeybees and hives. I put extra effort in keeping nectar sources available in our yard and fields, so it’s good to know what comes of that effort where I can’t see.

Does anyone know about the health of swift (and other mosquito-devouring bird) populations in areas where spraying is used as a control for west nile virus and eastern equine encephalitis?  Perhaps investing in nesting sites could provide natural controls in those areas and reduce the use of chemicals.

Swifts were the theme this summer for our vacation:

We spend every summer up in Vermont and was so sad to hear about the bats in your recent article, but happy to know the swifts are going after the mosquito - wow our whole vacation was alive with their wonderful ballet up in the air! 

We golf up at Milestone on the border of NY and fair haven, VT and they have great swifts all over their natural course which was an old family farm. 

And this summer we noticed nice nests under the bridge at Lemon Fair while Kayaking - they are a great bird!  Thanks for your great storytelling on them!

I remember walking through a state park about 10 years ago, and coming across this writhing, white mass of tiny worms on a tree - Not a hemlock, more like a maple or something.  This was my introduction to the adelgid. Is there any natural predator for this nasty animal?