David Searles wrote:The University of Vermont study was on a per acre basis, I should have mentioned that. The trees will provide a full canopy, with relatively only a small amount of light making it to the ground , soaking up a maximum of sunlight where bamboo cannot do that as effectively - or so it seems.
Erik Weaver wrote:
I'm not sure bamboo is an ideal candidate. Many species (most?) are hollow, and I think that would be problematic (I imagine lotsa little chimney sticks poking up out of the feed tube, heheh). There are however, solid varieties of bamboo which may work well.
Anef Alexos wrote:Hi folks,
I found a great book, which describes very well varieties , yields and requirments, for firewood crops.
The name is Firewood Crops: Shrub and Tree Species for Energy Production
you can also preview it here http://www.pssurvival.com/ps/crops/Firewood_Crops_Shrubs_And_Tree_Species_For_Energy_Production_1980.pdf
I am thinking that, if I want to be firewood sustainable (in my area in Greece grows no forest and we need fire for 3 months), I would have to plant a fairly big area of firewood crops for a rmh, maybe an acre?
The perfect rocket fuel in my opinion is the kind of stuff that always ends up in the burn pile for our rural neighbors: big yard-debris that's too woody to compost.
Valerie Dawnstar wrote:Dave Jacke & Mark Krawczyk are currently writing a book on that very topic. Please see http://www.coppiceagroforestry.com/
I just 'spoke' with an arborist friend of mine who said coppicing won't work to keep the EAB away as it is very small itself and attacks small branches. So forget it for that reason. But maybe it would make it easier to spot... ?
From the Neolithic to the beginning of the twentieth century, coppiced woodlands, pollarded trees, and hedgerows provided people with a sustainable supply of energy, materials, and food.